1. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant A in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of charges (excluding the dismissal part of public prosecution) on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the justifiable act

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. Thus, in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the Defendant, the allegation that the amount of

3. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant C in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of defamation caused by false representation of facts among the charges charged against the Defendant on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules

On the other hand, the judgment of the court below on the crime of interference with business.