The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. According to the statement of the victim and the statement of H by the employee of the broker company, the defendant, without the intent or ability to reduce, exempt, or exempt the franchise expenses, can be acknowledged that the defendant deceivings the victim to “be forced to reduce or exempt 10 million won of the franchise to pay to the head office” and by deceiving the victim to “be forced to reduce or exempt the amount to be paid to the head office.”

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor examined the facts charged at the trial of the case, and applied for changes in the indictment with the summary of the public prosecutor's office as follows. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Judgment to be used again]

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operated a coffee shop (hereinafter “the instant coffee shop”) with the trade name “D” located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the victim E enters into a “contract on the transfer of business” with the Defendant and operates the instant coffee shop at present.

In fact, the Defendant, despite the fact that the transferee does not need to pay the franchise fee to the head office separately when transferring or acquiring the right to operate a store. However, on July 7, 2015, the Defendant, at the J head office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, said on the part of the victim at the J head office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, “I talk well about the head office and cut the franchise fee, so I changed the franchise fee to KRW 7 million at the franchise expense,” and received KRW 7 million from

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. The charged facts of this case are determined.