Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In light of the legal principles, defamation (1) is not established, even if the defendant posted an urgent official bulletin and broadcasted the contents as stated in the judgment of the court below, since it does not undermine the external reputation of the victim D, the crime of defamation is not established.

(2) The problem of interference with business: Some apartment occupants refused to appraise the defect and thereby interfered with the business of the victim F.

Even if the defendant does not directly interfere with the victim F's emotional duty, the crime of interference with business is not established.

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

2. Determination

A. In a case where one act of spreading false facts ex officio determination constitutes defamation by spreading false facts under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act as well as crime of interference with business through spreading false facts under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, the two crimes are in a mutually competitive relationship.

In light of the records, the Defendant posted a false public notice, damaged the victim D’s reputation by broadcasting, and obstructed the business of the victim F by spreading false facts at the same time. The Defendant’s act is evaluated as one act under ordinary social norms. As such, the crime of defamation and the crime of interference with business caused by the posting of the instant public notice, and the crime of defamation and the crime of interference with business caused by broadcasting are in a mutually competitive relationship between the crime of defamation and the crime of interference with business caused by broadcasting.

Nevertheless, the court below dealt with each of the above crimes as substantive concurrent crimes, or omitted the application of the above crimes.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

B. M&D.