On September 12, 2005, the Defendant served as the representative director of D (hereinafter referred to as D) established mainly for manufacturing, wholesale and retail business of cosmetics from around September 12, 2005.

On September 24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around September 24, 2015, the F hotel Scar in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, imposes a victim G, and (b) the victim G, “from October 1, 2015 to April 10, 2015, a separate amount of KRW 100 million is imposed; (c) and (d) the total franchise deposit KRW 220 million by the end of September.

At present, although the total number of sales in the border area is one, the total number of sales in No. 1(s) was operated by I.

However, if you enter into the Seoul Special Metropolitan City sales contract, which is the general board No. 2 in the border area of North Korea, the total sales contract will no longer be added to the border area in the future, and the total sales contract will be supplied to the agency only in the storage without store. When you supply cosmetics, etc. to the agency at 35% price of the consumer price. If you supply them to the agency at 50% price, there is about 15% price of the consumer price, which will be cut off.

H contractor's name, which operates a light board on July 2015, is J.

It is necessary to recognize the amount of KRW 33 million which has already been paid to the Ulsan agency. Therefore, it is necessary to pay KRW 187 million at the total market cost.

Since the internal organ is the chairperson of D, the internal organ and the details of transfer are the trust of the contract and transfer of the total amount of the purchase price by transferring it. Accordingly, the company will publicize it on a large scale and invite the agency.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the Defendant applied for deliberation of a franchise agreement with the Fair Trade Commission to change the business around August 2015, 201 to the 50% of the consumer price in the way of “total sales and agency,” and the deliberation was passed on December 2, 2015, and thus, the Defendant could only enter into a franchise agreement with the victim to supply cosmetics, etc. to 50% of the consumer price, and could not enter into a total sales agreement to supply them to 35%.