A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the part concerning defamation by statement of fact 1), the court below erred by misapprehending the fact-finding, although the defendant's act was contrary to social norms, and found the defendant not guilty of this part of the charges. 2) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the part concerning defamation by statement of false fact and obstruction of business, the defendant spreads false facts while recognizing that the alleged facts were false, and interfered with the victim's solicitation business, but the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the amount of KRW 300,000 of a fine) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the facts revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that (i) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have the purpose of slandering the Defendant with respect to the defamation portion caused by a statement of fact, and even if the purpose of defamation is recognized, it does not go against the social norms; (ii) it cannot be deemed that there was the purpose of recognizing and slandering the Defendant with respect to the defamation and interference with business caused by a statement of false facts; and (iii)

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and since the prosecutor did not submit new evidence in the trial, it cannot be said that the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the grounds for determination of unfair sentencing claims and the sentencing indicated in the instant argument and records.