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

A. Defendant A exclusively supplied the victim’s Cheongba in Korea with the trademark that Defendant A is supplied to Defendant B, and it does not conclude a contract with the victim. Therefore, there is no fact of deceiving the victim by deceiving the victim in collusion with Defendant B as stated in the facts charged.

B. Defendant B did not have any statement that the victim would have been about 30 in total, and even when counseling with the victim, Defendant B supplied the victim as a female clean-free product. However, since Defendant B supplied the victim as a Cheong-boo and a male-free Chinese product among the female clean-free kis, and provided it as a three-day product that is supplied to the victim, Defendant B explained that the return or exchange is not possible, it did not have any fact of deceiving the victim as indicated in the facts charged, by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.

C. Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case states that the Defendants are “E” as well as the facts charged in Ilyang-gu P around November 29, 201. However, this is obvious that it is a clerical error of “P”. As such, the Defendants correct this part of the facts charged without going through a separate procedure of correction of the indictment.

In F’s “F clothes sales store”, the victim G, who reported and found the signboard of the above sales store “F clothing sales store” in the Franchis sales store, said that “At present F is engaged in Cheongbow sales store with the trade name of “F,” but the franchise store is about 30 times, and many people now talk with the franchise store. When entering the Franchis, the Franchis will supply 100% domestic office sites and at any time return and exchange.”

However, in fact, the defendants are 6 persons including sales stores operated by their relatives.