The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case, although the Defendant conspired with F and H in order to operate “D”, which is a non-registered multi-level sales organization.

2. Determination

A. The amendment of indictment (in addition to the facts charged in the preliminary charge) is based on the facts charged in the previous trial, and the “violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act” and the “To-Door Sales, etc. Act” under the name of the preliminary offense, and Articles 59(1)2, 23(1)1, and 13(1) of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., and Articles 32(1) and 40 of the Criminal Act, and Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are as follows:

2.(c)

1 Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment was filed in addition to the facts charged as described in paragraph 1, and this Court permitted this and changed the subject of the adjudication.

Nevertheless, the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, so it is judged in turn about the preliminary facts added in the trial.

B. A thorough examination of the judgment of the court below on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the primary facts charged in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is not enough to recognize that the evidence of this case alone, based on the evidence judgment as stated in its reasoning, was functional control over the crime such as the establishment, management, operation, etc. of D beyond the scope of selling activities as multi-stage salesman, and there was no new evidence corresponding to this part of the facts charged in the trial. Therefore, the court below's assertion