The judgment below

The guilty part of the Defendants, including the acquittal part of the reasons, is all reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the prosecutor's appeal

A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acquitted Defendant H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) of the facts charged of violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11324, Feb. 17, 2012; hereinafter “Door-to-Door Sales Act”) and the Cosmetics Act on the following grounds: (a) around 2005, around July 2006, around 2006, and around 2008; (b) violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act and the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. by misleading or misleading the Defendants; and (c) violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., by taking a strict examination by international organizations on October 2008; and (d) violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., and violation of the Act on Door-Door Sales, etc. and the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, as it is, on the grounds that there was no violation of the Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by violating logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Meanwhile, the prosecutor appealed on the remainder of the judgment of the court below, but did not state the grounds of objection as to this part in the petition of appeal and the appellate brief.

2. As to the Defendants’ appeal

A. We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal on the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act by running a multi-level marketing organization without registration.

The Defendants violated the Door-to-Door Sales Act by operating a multi-level marketing organization without registration among the convictions of the lower judgment.