Of the facts charged of this case, the prosecution against intimidation is dismissed.

Victim C is a real representative of corporation D that mainly engages in franchise food business.

The defendant entered into a franchise contract with the victim by operating a restaurant from a food cafeteria cafeteria in the Francot E in e in e, the defendant.

The defendant from January 28, 2013 to the same year.

1. From 30. to 30. The Internet, NAV, camping, and Google website, "it may not receive any principal and interest from the fraud that the C president-related brand shop occupants" over about 500 times, "PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPY.

However, there was no fact that the victims were forced to make investments from prospective business starters and did not escape.

The Defendant spreads false facts as above, thereby hindering the victim’s franchise contract work.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 314 (1) and Article 313 of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. The fine to be suspended, 500.