The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and the legal principle) reveals the evidence submitted by the prosecutor that the Defendant was aware that C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) was equipped with a multi-level marketing organization or an organization composed of persons by stages similar thereto and was attracting investment from K by using it, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

2. The prosecutor changed the indictment to the indictment for the following three (b) the previous facts charged as the primary charge. The prosecutor stated in the indictment as follows: “helping and aiding the violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc.,” “helping and abetting the Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act”, “Article 58(1)4 and Article 24(1)1 of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act”, and Article 3(1) of the indictment were amended to the effect that each of the facts charged are added.

Nevertheless, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, so it is judged in the order of the preliminary facts added in the trial.

3. Determination

A. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles concerning the primary facts charged by the court below, the evidence of this case, based on the judgment of the court below, is sufficient to find that C either knew that the defendant either provided a multi-level marketing organization or other similar organization composed of persons by stages, thereby soliciting investors, or that the defendant also

On the ground that it is difficult to conclude this part of the facts charged, the protocol that judged the innocence is just and acceptable, and there was no new evidence that corresponds to this part of the facts charged in the trial.