The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant merely distributed advertising leaflets produced by the victim D to the effect that the Defendant had confirmed that there was an enterprise leading to the Defendant to buy the prices, and at the time, the victim did not actually engage in Kwikset service. As such, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s service business by misrepresenting E staff or spreading false facts as stated in the facts charged.

B. The unfair sentencing of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court, the Defendant knew that the injured party reduced the service price of Kwikset only to some stores, and distributed false information to all stores by distributing advertising leaflets as if he did so, thereby hindering the victim’s business of Kwikset.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is correct, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

① In the front section distributed by the Defendant, “E Kwikset Service” is a clerical error in “Cooperation” with Y and N companies.

The victim, at the time of October 10, 2014, did not register the business, but used the trade name E, and was engaged in the business upon request of Kwikset service with the phone machine established in the NN office.

Defendant

In addition, the investigative agency did not at all engage in Kwikset Services at the time of the instant case.

“I have not complied with the prosecutor’s question.”

The answer was called “(127 pages of the investigation records).”

② From the standpoint of Kwikset Service Companies, the fact that Kwikset Service Companies did not meet the calculation of damages rather than damages is consistent with the Defendant and the victim’s statement.

2.2