The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant, in collusion with E, etc., conducted a multi-level multi-level sales business without registration, and conducted an act of receiving money without authorization from the authorities, was found not guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles

2. Determination

A. The previous facts charged on the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act shall be the primary charge of the violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. for the first time in the trial. The prosecutor shall include “violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. and the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act” under the name of the conjunctive charge, “Article 59(1)2, Articles 23(1)2, 58(1)1, and 13(1) of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., and Articles 32(1) and 40 of the Criminal Act”

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 assertion of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Door-to-Door Sales, etc., as to the violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., is still subject to the judgment of the court. Therefore, it is judged in order of the preliminary charges

B. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below on the prosecutor's assertion of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Door-to-Door Sales, Etc., it is difficult to see that the defendant operated multi-level marketing business with E, etc. on the ground of the circumstances in its holding.