The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On July 4, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the entrance of the Busan metropolitan commercial building, the Defendant interfered with the victim D’s restaurant operation and the laundry operation of the victim Flaund on the signboard of the victim D’s “E-cafeteria” signboard and the “G” signboard operated by the victim F, respectively; and (b) caused customers who find the victims to confuse that the above restaurant and laundry are not operating a business.

2. In full view of the legal statement of the witness I, the entry of the police statement of the F and D, and the permission of outdoor advertisement advertisement, etc., the Defendant separately set up a standing signboard with 13 square meters for the promotion of the commercial building owned by the Defendant and his mother among the C commercial buildings around February 2008, and the lessee had the lessee attach each trade name. The victim F operated the laund on a lease of 202th underground floor 202, the Defendant’s mother, and operated the laund on a rent of 201, the above laund on a rent of 201, which was awarded by auction, but did not remove the trade name from the above laund. The victim D leased the above 204th underground floor 204 from the JJ purchased at auction, which was owned by the Defendant, and attached his trade name without the Defendant’s consent, and the Defendant removed the trade name of the victims and affixed the sign “lease” on a rent.

According to this, the defendant attached a signboard "lease" to remove the trade name of a store whose lease has been terminated and the trade name of a store attached without permission, and lease it again on a prop-supported signboard owned and managed by him. Thus, this constitutes a legitimate act of the defendant under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, which constitutes a legitimate act of the defendant under Article 20 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the facts charged in this case do not constitute a crime, and thus,