The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles (1) 1) The Defendant who alleged that there is no deception does not enter into a merchant agreement with the victims in mind that they will acquire the deposit.
The defendant has actually fulfilled the obligations under the franchise store contract.
The reason for the victims' failure to return the deposit is that the owner of the late franchise store received the deposit from the owner of the late franchise store and returned it to the former owner of the franchise store, and the latter owner did not support it.
In addition, another reason is that some of the franchisees' unilateral termination of the contract causes losses to customers by leaving the contract, and in this situation, the losses have been accumulated as the customers continued to pay advertising costs for attracting new customers, telemarket marketing costs, etc.
Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, there is no fact that the defendant deceivings the victims at the time of receiving the deposit from the victims.
② The Defendant alleged that he did not have the intention to commit the crime of defraudation does not have the intention or ability to return the deposit from the time he received the deposit to the victims, but rather became unable to pay the deposit ex post facto because the damage was accumulated by the unilateral termination of the franchisees.
Although they were hostile, some victims have returned some of the deposits over several times.
Therefore, the defendant does not have the scope of fraud.
(2) In relation to defamation of the victim on September 22, 2014, the part concerning a violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”) (hereinafter “information and communications network Act”) (hereinafter “information and communications network Act”) (i.e., defamation”) was punished as committing a crime of intimidation against the Defendant on April 9, 2014.
Since the victim has a cellular phone at the time of the intimidation, the victim is "victim" among the facts alleged by the defendant.