The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prior to the wholly amended Act No. 11324 on February 17, 2012, the former Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc.

The former Door-to-Door Sales Act (hereinafter “former Door-to-Door Sales Act”)

(2) The court below found the defendant company guilty of adding the above violation of Article 23(1)2 of the former Door-to-Door Sales Act to the effect that the prosecutor's application for the amendment of a bill of indictment was filed, but the above application is unlawful to add the criminal facts that are not identical to the first prosecuted charges and thus cannot be subject to permission. In addition, the defendant A failed to educate the employees of at least 10,000 won per month so that it can easily increase high profit," and the above contents of education do not constitute a violation of the above provision of the Act. (2) The part of Article 22(1) of the former Door-to-Door Sales Act violation of the former Door-to-Door Sales Act provides that the defendant company may become a salesperson who is 20 years of age or older without any other restriction, and that the members of the actual class have been paid support allowances, and thus, it did not impose any burden on the multilevel salesman, and the defendant A did not commit an act of unfair sentencing against the defendant.

2. Determination

A. Whether the amendment of the indictment to the court below is unlawful (1) The amendment of the indictment to the indictment is permitted only to the extent consistent with the facts charged, and where there is an application for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that the crimes not identical to the facts charged are added as the facts charged, the court shall dismiss the application (Article 298(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the identity of the facts charged is the same in the basic point of view.