The case holding that it does not constitute an organization prohibited from being established, managed and operated under Article 18 (3) of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act.

According to the provisions of the sales organization managed and operated by the Defendants, a personnel system by which new members can be promoted if they achieve a certain amount of sales at each stage of sales. Even if a sales agent who is a sales agent receives a certain amount of allowances for the sales amount, other than the deputy head, for each sales agent who is a sales agent, the new members shall be openly employed through newspapers and advertisements, and the new members shall be appointed after education in accordance with the training schedule, and then be placed below the head of each department, and then sales activities shall be conducted. The new members shall be 80% of the new members, and the new members shall be purchased at the same time as new members, but the new members shall not merely purchase the company's sales agent under their parents' name to raise their performance, not merely as new members, but as 903 members of the company's sales agent are merely customers who purchased the company's products, and such sales agent and the head of the above headquarters and the head of the sales agent shall not be deemed to constitute the sales agent's sales agent's training and support activities under the weekly Education Program.

Articles 26 and 18 of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, and Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Busan District Court Decision 93Da6512 delivered on October 27, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and 2 and 3 is as follows: (a) the Defendants engaged in the head office of the non-party corporation, such as the time of the original judgment, and managed and operated an organization to sell the revenue quota by multi-level marketing method; (b) the sales business was conducted by disclosing and employing the above company as well as by proxy who received certain education; and (c) the court below recognized that the Defendants managed and operated the organization prohibited by the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act even though there was no person promoted under the above provision; (d) the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the acts prohibited by the above Act by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of the acts prohibited by the above Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment; and (e) the summary of the second point is

2. Determination (as to the first ground for appeal)

① The summary of the facts charged in this case is as shown in the separate sheet. In summary, the sales organization of the above company managed by the defendants and operated by the defendants constitutes a phased organization prohibited under Article 18(3), (1), and (2) of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act. Since the defendants dispute this, the issue of this case is whether the sales organization of the above company constitutes an organization prohibited under the above provisions. In light of the requirements for becoming an organization prohibited under the above provisions, the organization is based on the sales contract between the first door-to-door seller and the person recommended by the said seller (hereinafter referred to as the "the other party") and the other party to become a member of the organization in step (hereinafter referred to as the "subscriber"), and is recommended by the other party to become a member of the organization in step, or between the other party and the other party or the other party to whom the operation method or activities of the organization are directly carried out by the other party or the other party to the company, regardless of the name of the other party or the other party to the operation or activities of the organization, and payment of the other party.

② In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various evidences submitted by the prosecutor in this case, the above "non-party corporation" shall be the Vice-Minister if the agent who is a new employee reaches 20,000 won in sales, and the Vice-President shall be the head if the agent who is affiliated with the company achieves 60,000 won in sales through the sale of the goods, and the head of the division shall have the personnel system as the head of the headquarters if the agent attains 2,40,000 won in sales through the same method. The head of the division shall receive 12% in each case of sales of water purifiers, 10% in the deputy, 4% in the head of the division, 1% in the head of the department, 4% in the managing director, and 1% in the managing director in addition to the Vice-Door Sales Act prohibiting the above door-to-Door Sales Act. It is clear that the profits from the sales of the goods by a policyholder other than the directly recommended by the other party are linked to the actual sales of the goods by the other party.

③ Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the Defendants’ police, prosecutor’s office, court’s statement at the court below, witness education schedule, R/O’s basic principles, individual performance and wages, newspaper, copy of each contract, work log, and materials for employee education, etc., the above company disclosed and hires new employees through newspaper advertising. The new employees appointed employees pursuant to the education schedule and appointed them as their representatives, and then allowed them to engage in sales activities at the same time as the new employees, and the purchase of the above water purifiers at the same time was not merely a condition for membership, but also a mere purchase by parents and other relatives to raise performance as at the time of the judgment of the court below, and it was difficult for the above company to recognize that the above employees and the other party’s employees did not participate in the above act of sales to the extent that the above employees and the head of the office of education was no more than a certain size of the company’s organization’s sales activities, regardless of their terms and conditions. However, it is also difficult to recognize that the above employees and the other party’s employees did not participate in the above training program.

④ Thus, the facts charged of this case are not a crime or there is no proof of a crime. Thus, the court below found the Defendants not guilty. The court below found the Defendants guilty. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of the acts prohibited under the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act or by misapprehending the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, it is justified to have rejected the appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendants' appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following judgment is rendered as follows.

As determined in the grounds of reversal prior to the reversal of the facts charged against the Defendants, the above facts charged constitute a crime or there is no evidence to support the facts charged, and thus, a not-guilty verdict is rendered pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(1) The court shall decide as ordered by the court on the following grounds:

When a judge Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge) is dismissed;