Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

However, even if it is not so, the punishment of the original judgment (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant recognized the fact that the Defendant made the victim C a statement of the same contents as the facts charged at the time and place stated in the facts charged at the court of original instance. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the Defendant, despite the Defendant’s request for a student to have a sound 60 to 70 students entering a locked class between the school instructor G and the locked place, the Defendant would have the student take a desire for the victim, and the victim would continue 15 minutes without going through the classroom, even if the student changed in the classroom, and the student continued to take a desire for 15 minutes without going through the classroom, and around 2007, the Defendant was able to recognize that the victim committed an indecent act against the victim despite his/her intention to commit an indecent act against the prosecution.

The Defendant’s act constitutes defamation by publicly alleging false facts (the expression “sexually indecent act” should be deemed to constitute a “public allegation of fact” rather than a mere insult or expression of opinion), interference with business, and insult.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant worked as an instructor of a school operated by the victim seven years prior to the argument of unfair sentencing.