A. Defendant’s assertion 1) Giving rise to suspicion of mistake that he/she used counterfeit parts as an issue for the public interest of consumers’ safety. The Defendant’s act of defamation and obstruction of business should be dismissed as a justifiable act in accordance with Article 20 of the Criminal Act, in light of the content of X-report and the media reporting process to verify it, and thus, the Defendant’s intent and purpose of defamation is not recognized. 2) Since the Defendant alleged the misapprehension of the legal doctrine is believed to have used counterfeit parts as a truth and for the public interest, the Defendant’s act of defamation and obstruction of business should be justified in light of the Defendant’s purpose, means, and degree, etc.

3) The harm and injury caused by the Defendant’s act of claiming unfair sentencing is not significant, and the Defendant does not have the same criminal records. In light of the Defendant’s loyalty, intent, and the background of the instant case, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s Defendant did not recognize his mistake and did not consistently and inconsistent with his defense.

The defendant, who is an expert in vehicle height analysis in Korea and abroad, raised a suspicion that can cause a large scale to the victim, and posted online the contents that can cause a fatal apprehension to the general public indiscreetly.

The press report to the effect that it can be a true fact raised by the defendant continues to be posted online.

The defendant did not take measures to recover damage, and the victim is still punished by the defendant.

In light of this, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.