From November 2013 to October 1, 2015, the Defendant sold to customers urban communities made of ethylama with the presiding charge. The Defendant indicated “Domini Domini Ba” as “Domini Domin Domini” and indicated as follows: (a) the Defendant’s raw material indicated that “domini Domini Domini” was “domin Domini Domini Domini Domini Domin Domini, which was made of Domini Domini Domini Domini Domin,” and indicated as if the material was ethyl but as if the material was Domini Domin.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to recognize the criminal intent that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone carries a false label on the name of the raw materials of food.

A. As a franchisee, the Defendant’s Qua New Market used by the Defendant is not made by the Defendant, but made by the franchisor, and the presence fees for each food is also based on what the franchisor set.

In relation to the instant case’s “Domini Simar” that is at issue, the franchisor determined that the Defendant’s use of ethylis as the presiding fee of food “Domini Simar” was determined by the franchisor. The Defendant’s use of ethylis was determined by the franchisor.

B. Although the Defendant stated “ethylis” in the packaging of food materials ordered by the Defendant, the name of the business entity that ordered food materials is indicated as “ethylis” on the product name of “ethylis” and thus, there is room for misunderstanding the Defendant as the Defendant.

In fact, when receiving education from the franchisor, the Defendant was aware that the presence fee of the “Domi Linari” was educated as Domi, and that the Defendant was aware that it was in English.

was stated in the police.

3. The instant facts charged against the Defendant are without proof of a crime.