2. The conclusion that the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 3.3 million for the recovery of damage, and that there is no record of criminal punishment other than fines imposed on two occasions prior to about 20 years, is favorable.

On the other hand, the defendant spreads false facts as if he committed a crime, and the degree of interference with the business therefrom is considerable, and the victim eventually did not have to perform the duties of the chairperson of the promotion committee and seems to have been subject to a lot of criticism to other residents even thereafter.

In full view of the factors and sentences of the sentencing in this Court, the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, when determining the sentencing.

There is no circumstance that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or that the judgment of the court below is unfair.

In addition, even if the circumstances and results of the instant crime were to be considered after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., the sentence of the lower court is deemed to be adequate and too unreasonable.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.