The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Victim CN is involved.

1. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of all the facts charged which the prosecutor originally indicted (hereinafter “instant facts charged”).

Therefore, the prosecutor filed an appeal on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, failure of deliberation, and violation of procedures, and then filed an appeal before the remanding of the case, and then added a competitive relation with I to the above facts charged and reduced the amount acquired by deceit and the amount of transaction, and filed an application for modification of amendments to indictment with the addition of charges for aiding and abetting each fraud.

Before remanding, the court found the Defendant not guilty on each changed fraud after permitting it, and found the Defendant guilty on the violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc., the amended door-to-Door Sales, etc., and each supplementary fraud added in the first instance prior to the return.

Accordingly, the Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance prior to the aforementioned remand, and the Supreme Court held that CN, which is described as the victim of fraud aiding and abetting the judgment prior to the above remand, is the child of the Defendant, is exempt from punishment for this part of the facts charged, and that the same investor has invested the same amount as that of the same date. As such, the facts charged changed in the trial prior to the above remand are deemed to have been the same as that of the same date, the transaction amount in each fraud aiding and abetting is double calculated.

On the ground that there is sufficient room to view, a judgment was rendered to reverse the judgment before remanding.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, as the head of a branch office, recognized that I’s business was a method to prevent the return of I’s business through regular meetings between I and the heads of the branch offices, but the I’s overseas business was raising a big profit.

On the other hand, the victims were found not guilty of each fraud among the facts charged in the instant case, even though they were allowed to make investments to the I.