The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

. The applicant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendants, as the heads of respective management directors and branch offices, recognized that the J’s business was a law to prevent the return of the business through regular meetings between J and the heads of branch offices, but the J’s overseas business was raising a large profit.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of each of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The lower court found Defendant B not guilty of violating the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. (hereinafter “Door Sales Act”) among the facts charged in the instant case, inasmuch as it committed a prohibited act under Article 24(1)1 of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. (hereinafter “Door-to-Door Sales Act”) by using an organization composed of persons who were equally admitted to a multi-level marketing organization similar to that of a multi-level marketing organization, without trading goods, and thereby doing so.

(c)

In other words, the court below failed to make a decision on the non-examination of the hearing and the resumption of hearing and ex officio examination of evidence by the prosecutor, but requested the opportunity to present opinions on the violation of the door-to-door Sales Act, but did not accept it. The court below erred in the incomplete deliberation and the proceeding of the procedure.

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The prosecutor added the previous facts charged against the Defendants not guilty at the trial of the court below as described in Articles 3.3(1) and 3.2(b)1 of the former facts charged by the court below. However, with respect to each of the fraud against the Defendants, the name of the crime is referred to as “the aiding and abetting fraud”, “Articles 347(1), 32, 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act”, “Article 347(1), 32, 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act”, and the facts charged on April 1.