A. As to the crime of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the facts alleged by the Defendant are true, and even if false, the Defendant did not have awareness of false facts by misunderstanding them as true facts, and thus does not constitute defamation.

In addition, since the defendant's act is solely related to the public interest, illegality is excluded.

As to the crime of interference with business, the facts alleged by the defendant were true, and even if they were false, there was no intention to interfere with business.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant alleged the facts as stated in the judgment of the court below was false, and that the defendant also knew that it was false, and therefore, the crime of defamation and crime of interference with business is recognized

Furthermore, even if the defendant believed that the facts alleged by the defendant are true, since there is no reasonable ground to believe such facts, the illegality of the defendant's act cannot be excluded pursuant to Article 310 or 20 of the Criminal Act.

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

① There is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the victim C requested the successful bidder of the instant apartment sports facility (hereinafter referred to as “health club”) as indicated in D or the lower judgment to pay money to the successful bidder of the instant apartment sports facility (hereinafter referred to as “health club”) and it does not return the security deposit to other members

In addition, in light of the circumstances seen below ②, it is reasonable to view that the timely facts indicated in the decision of the court below are false.

② Although D stated that the Defendant directly demanded money to the victim C in relation to the operation of the health club (Evidence No. 17 pages) the lower court.