The defendant shall be innocent.

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

In fact, the Defendant did not have to pay the franchise fee to the head office separately when acquiring the right to operate the store. However, on June 20, 2015, the Defendant concluded a contract with the victim to comprehensively transfer and acquire the right to operate the instant coffee shop at the office of the KF building 14th, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, with the victim via H, the GG staff member of the LG in charge of the dispute resolution committee, and concluded a contract with the victim to transfer and acquire the right to operate the instant coffee shop on June 20, 2015. The Defendant makes a false statement to the effect that “the above H would request the victim to leave the headquarters to the head office to remove the visa to the effect that the Plaintiff, who is the GG staff member of the LG in charge of the dispute resolution committee, would have to pay the purchase price to the head office separately from the above sale amount.

Provided, however, the transferor exempted the franchise expenses and allowed the transferor to additionally pay KRW 10 million to the transferor. On July 7, 2015, the transferor made a false statement to the victim of the J head office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, stating that “The victim of the J head office in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, “I talked about the head office and cut the franchise expenses at the head office, thereby reducing the franchise expenses, thereby changing the franchise expenses to KRW 7 million at the franchisor’s expense.” The transferor received KRW 7 million from the victim as a franchisee.

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

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(a) between the defendant and the victim;