around February 8, 2011, the Defendants stated that “The Victim F obtained the authority to establish a nationwide general sales office, branch office, and learning center from E. The establishment of a branch may take profits from the establishment of a branch.” Under a contract with G, the Defendants would guarantee more profits than establishing a branch.”

However, in fact, the Defendants obtained the right to establish a learning center from E through a business cooperation agreement concluded with E around January 26, 201, but the right to establish a branch was not obtained. Since the right to establish a branch was only obtained through a business cooperation agreement concluded on April 18, 2011 between E and E, the Defendants did not have the right to establish a branch office for the victim at the time of concluding the contract with the victim as above.

The Defendants received 10 million won as the deposit money for the establishment of a branch from the victim in the seat.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to attract the victim to receive the goods.

2. Determination

A. On February 8, 2011, the facts charged of the instant case was premised on the fact that the Defendants did not obtain the right to establish a branch office from E until the time when the Defendants entered into the contract with the victim.

However, in full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, such as the witness H and I’s statements in this court, it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to conclude that the Defendants failed to obtain the authority to establish the branch office at the time of entering into the said branch office contract,

(2) This is the same as that of the other.