The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the franchise business entity that engages in food service by recruiting franchise stores with the brand called “F” (hereinafter “victim E”).

From April 2012, the Defendant: (a) from around April 2012, when taking charge of the recruitment of member stores in the damaged company, obtained money from the victim company to the recruitment of member stores; and (b) from around April 2014, he/she is in charge of soliciting “H” member stores G from around December 2014, which run the same kind of business as the victimized company.

On June 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) raised doubt that “the victim company was called “A” against the franchisor through newspapers, etc. on the early 2015, the Defendant provided a preferential treatment that reduces the distribution expense by 20% only to the franchisor of the victimized company operating the “J” at the Daegu Metropolitan City I on June 6, 2015, in the currency with K and the franchisor of the victimized company operating the “J” at the Daegu Metropolitan City I; and (b) the Franchisor and the franchisor of the headquarters should be collected from the franchisories of Daegu Metropolitan City and seized the Franchisor’s site. In addition, the Franchisor’s head office is selected through the recommendation, etc. of each region among the franchisor’s members (the franchisor’s head office that serves as the franchisor’s respective policies and delivers the requirements to

In the end, the defendant spreads false facts despite the fact that the damaged company did not reduce the distribution expense to the development committee members, and if the victimized company did not enforce compulsory execution against the victimized company, the defendant damaged the damaged company's credit by using the deceptive scheme as if the chain store owners were to have

2. The facts charged in the instant case revealing false facts in spite of the fact that the victimized company did not reduce the distribution cost to the development committee members, and ② did not enforce compulsory execution against the victimized company.