1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendants are those who oppose the establishment of the regional housing association of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City, and the victim Nonindicted 1 is the chairman of the regional housing association of ○○ △△△, and the victim Nonindicted 2 is the representative director of the apartment sales agent of the said regional housing association (hereinafter “Nonindicted 3”).

From August 1, 2015 to August 20, 2015, the Defendants conspired to post one banner (90cm x 3m) to oppose the establishment of the regional housing association in south-gu, Busan, and posted a false statement to the effect that “the full amount of the development funds can be paid in the event of failure of the regional housing association.” As such, the Defendants interfered with the establishment of the victim Nonindicted 1’s association and the sales agency business of the victim Nonindicted 2.

2. The lower court maintained the first instance court’s judgment that convicted all of the facts charged of this case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. However, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s judgment for the following reasons.

A. “Dissemination of false facts” in the crime of interference with business refers to spreading facts that do not conform to objective truth, and does not constitute mere expression of opinion or value judgment. The distinction between whether the subject matter is a fact or an opinion shall be made by taking into account the overall circumstances, such as the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the possibility of proof, the context in which the language at issue was used, and the social situation at the time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2956, Mar. 24, 1998; 2010Do17237, Sept. 2, 2011). Further, in this context, false facts do not necessarily require basic facts, but include cases where there is a risk of obstructing another person’s business by adding false facts to a considerable extent. However, the entire purport of the contents is consistent with objective facts, merely because there is a little difference in detailed facts or there is no degree of exaggeration that does not interfere with the other person’s business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do58686.).

B. The evidence reveals the following facts.

1) The Busan Southern-gu ○○○dong was designated as a redevelopment improvement zone for ○5 Housing Redevelopment, and the redevelopment of housing was promoted. On February 2014, the approval of the Committee for Promotion of Establishment of an Association was revoked, and around November 2014, the rearrangement zone was revoked.

2) Non-Indicted 1 promoted the establishment of the ○○○○○○ Local Housing Association (hereinafter “instant association”) in order to operate the housing construction project with a housing site size of 47,388 square meters and the estimated number of households of 980 households in Nam-gu, Busan ( Address 2 omitted), and Non-Indicted 2 vicariously performed the recruitment of members as the representative director of Non-Indicted 3.

3) According to the membership agreement of the instant association, members are required to pay the cooperative contributions and the cooperative agency expenses.

4) According to a fund management agency contract concluded with Nonindicted Co. 4, a fund manager, and Nonindicted Co. 5, an agent, as a representative of the instant promotion committee, Nonindicted Co. 1 entered into with Nonindicted Co. 5, a fund manager, as a proxy of the instant promotion committee, the association member contributions are used for all the costs incurred in performing the project, such as land purchase costs, project costs, construction works costs, etc., and the association agent charges are not replaced or refunded with the

5) The Defendants residing in Busan Nam-gu, ○○○○-dong, opposed to the establishment of the instant association, she created a banner stating the phrase “it may date all the amount of development investment in failure of the regional housing association” (hereinafter “instant banner”), “it is the place where 50% of the owners of land in 005 are dissolved against the development, she shall join the regional housing association, be careful and careful to the investment,” and “as the consent of the regional housing association may be the same as the act of causing the occurrence of the guarantee, it shall be careful to the investment.”

C. Examining the above facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, even if the aforesaid facts are indicated to the instant banner that the Defendants may work “all” rather than part of the amount invested in a failure of the regional housing association, it is merely an exaggeration of the fact that the Defendants invested in the regional housing association in the area where they reside and the housing construction project is being carried out, and thus, may incur loss in the amount of investment if they failed to carry out the project. Thus, it is difficult to view it as constituting a dissemination of false facts.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the dissemination of false facts in relation to the crime of interference with business, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)