A. As to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding defamation ①, the Defendant actually lent KRW 15 million to the victim, but failed to receive payment, and thus, the Defendant did not indicate false facts.

② With regard to the damage and damage of property, the instant stone axis is merely a soil straw, and does not constitute “refluor,” and it inevitably collapses stone straws in the process of getting off with a bucker owned by the Defendant. Thus, it is a legitimate act that does not violate social rules as a self-help for a tort committed by a victim.

③ As to interference with business, the victim F and G constitute workers employed by C, and the victim F and G cannot be deemed as the subject of the instant business.

In addition, the instant business constitutes a violation of general traffic by installing fences on public roads, and thus does not constitute a business worthy of legal protection, as it is not a legitimate business.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to defamation and damage of property, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and investigated, and rejected the Defendant’s above assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons in the part “as to the argument of the Defendant and the defense counsel”.

Examining the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts affecting the judgment.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to interference with business, Article 314 of the Criminal Act is applicable.