A. In relation to Defendant 1’s mistake of facts, Defendant 1 suffered injury or at least assault from C at the time of the instant case, and thus, the Defendant’s accusation against Defendant C cannot be deemed to be false, and the lower court convicted Defendant 1 of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) In relation to the obstruction of business and damage to property, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s accounting affairs at the time of the instant case or damaged the victim’s mobile phone, and the lower court convicted him of this part of the facts charged, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 2.5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. In relation to defamation of fact 1, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, although the defendant was found to have damaged the reputation of the complainant by openly pointing out facts as in this part of the facts charged, according to the fact confirmation (the list No. 6 of the evidence in 2016 high 56 case), the complainants and K investigative agencies and the court below's legal statements, G's legal statements, etc.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact 1), the lower court, in its judgment, stated in detail the part of Article 2(a) of the “Determination on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion” and rejected C.

The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the records, and in addition, the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.