The judgment of the court below is reversed.

1. Defendant A

A. Defendant A is against Defendant A in the list of crimes set forth in attached Table 2.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and imprisonment for 2 years, Defendant E, F, and G) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants on each part of the facts charged in the instant case, which was found guilty by Defendant A, E, F, and G, is too unreasonable.

B. According to the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles), the prosecutor appealed the entire judgment (guilty and acquitted part) against the Defendants.

The Defendants organized each team with female gate, repair engineer, and team leader, etc.: (i) publicize as if they can normally repair boilers by means of attaching a boiler with the phone number, etc. attached to the worn-out housing even though there was no adequate knowledge about boilers; and (ii) misleads the Defendants as if they had visited the stoves free of charge after visiting the stoves on the worn-out housing; and (iii) make the sto replace, repair, and clean the pipe or distribution system to be replaced, repaired, and clean up the stoves even though the stoves did not have any particular problem, and (iv) receive a delivery of more money than normal repair and cleaning even if they did not properly repair and clean the boiler; and therefore, there was a violation of the Act on Fraud and Door-to-Door Sales, etc., as to the entire charges of this case.

Nevertheless, among the facts charged in the instant case, the victims guilty of violating the Act on Fraud and Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. (hereinafter “Door Sales Act”) only in cases where unnecessary distribution devices are replaced by the Defendants, and the remainder of the facts charged are not proven.

There is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, E, F, G and Prosecutor.

In the case of this case at the trial of the prosecutor.