The crime of the first instance judgment (No. 2015 order No. 1003 of the judgment) and the second instance judgment (No. 2017 order No. 155 of the judgment) are the crimes of the second instance judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s judgment No. 1 (2015, 1003, hereinafter “E”) was erroneous or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to Defendant A) and the Defendant’s office as the representative director, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) is the actual owner of D in the Gu and America (hereinafter “instant building”) Nos. 101, 102, 105, 108, 116, and 117. As such, the Defendant did not intend to interfere with the business of Cheongpa Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Cheongpa”), and the content of the banner attached by the Defendant is the truth.

Therefore, the defendant did not interfere with the business of the victim's right-finding.

B. Each act of a defendant committed by a defendant constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against social norms.

B) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of suspended sentence in the month of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2) The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. As to the judgment of the court below of the second instance, the case No. 2016 order 240, 2015 order 432, 476, 4777, and 478 order is related to the crime of destroying property under paragraph (d) of Article 1 of the judgment of the court below in this part of the facts charged, the defendant did not have directed V to the actual container, and each act of the defendant in this part of the facts charged constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social rules.

B) Regarding each of the instant cases in 2016 senior group 1100, 1320, and 1737, the Defendant’s timely statement by banner, etc. is all true, and the Defendant’s each of the instant facts charged constitutes a justifiable act that does not contravene social norms.

C) As to the 2017 Highest 155 case, the Defendant did not request the victim to make an investment with respect to Kimcheon-si AL, AM, andN, and only borrowed money from the damaged party, and did not obtain money from the victim because he/she had the intent and ability to repay.

2) The lower court erred in sentencing.