A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

A. 1) The lower court convicted all of the facts charged of the instant case (Defamation point, interference with the performance of official duties, and each of the charges). On that basis, the Defendant appealed on the grounds that the lower court erred by mistake of facts and improper sentencing, and that the Prosecutor appealed on the grounds that the sentencing was unfair.

2) Prior to the remand, the lower judgment was reversed by accepting the Defendant’s partial assertion of mistake as to defamation, and the part of the lower judgment recognized the criminal facts in this part of the case, which read as “the preparation of a document expressing false facts as if the victim, etc. were in control of the specialized driving school without any legal basis,” and determined as not guilty (not guilty of the grounds), and the remainder of the allegation as to mistake of false facts was rejected.

On the other hand, only the defendant raised an appeal.

3) The Supreme Court rejected all of the grounds of appeal on the charge of obstructing the Defendant’s performance of official duties and making an accusation. As to defamation, the Supreme Court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on changes in indictment since it would substantially disadvantage the Defendant’s exercise of his/her right of defense, thereby misunderstanding the legal principles on changes in indictment. If that part is reversed for the reason that it did not constitute concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower court reversed the entire judgment prior

B. The part rejected by the court of final appeal on the ground that the allegation of the grounds for appeal is groundless shall have become final and conclusive simultaneously with the pronouncement of the judgment, and the defendant shall not be able to contest against this part, and the court that received the refund shall not make any decision contrary thereto (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8661, Feb. 12, 2009). Accordingly, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the entire facts charged in the instant case.