The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fines received from the Defendant claiming the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles are voluntary, and there was no forced force, and the Defendant was kept only by the intention to return all after the fact.

The dormitory of the salesperson was not carried out by the defendant's forced execution, and the salesperson was free from the outside and from the outside.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence (fine 5,000,000) against the Defendant claiming unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the evidence, in particular, F's investigation agency and court court's statement, etc., it is acknowledged that the defendant imposed an obligation to pay a fine of 50,000 won per unit of goods if the defendant's sale of the goods assigned to the salesperson is not possible, and the salesperson actually paid a fine as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and as the defendant was unable to enter or leave the house, it can be recognized that the defendant was unable to attend the company without a camp, and therefore the salesperson was forced to collect money or goods under Article 24 (1) 4 of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes a case where the defendant imposes an obligation on the salesperson to collect money or goods under Article 24 (1) 7 of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., and the facts charged in this case are sufficiently recognized, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty or unlawful as alleged.

B. On the assertion of unfair sentencing