The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).

1. The court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) among the facts charged in this case, and recognized that the amount obtained by deceit was all the money paid by the victims as the purchase cost of goods.

In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the elements for establishment of fraud and the amount of fraud, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the part of violation of the former Door-to-Door Sales Act (amended by Act No. 11324, Feb. 17, 2012; hereinafter “Door-to-Door Sales Act”) related to N Co., Ltd. in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court’s reasoning is somewhat inappropriate, but the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on multi-level distributor under the Door-to-Door Sales Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the part related to door-to-door sales violation related to the R Co., Ltd. in light of the evidence, the lower judgment convicting all of the facts charged in the instant case of violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales related to the R Co., Ltd., did not err by misapprehending the fact

4. Examining the following circumstances: the Defendant’s age, character, intelligence, and environment; the motive, means, and consequence of each of the instant crimes; and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the Defendant asserts that the sentencing conditions indicated in the record.