The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although it did not constitute a damage to credit because the defendant's opinion or value judgment is not a false content, and since the defendant expressed his opinion or value judgment on the customers' sound of the corporate bank homepage, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of credit damage in determining the assertion of mistake of facts requires that the credibility of a person be damaged through the spread of false facts or through other fraudulent means. Here, the dissemination of false facts is spreading past or present facts that do not conform with the objective truth, and thus does not constitute an expression of a defendant’s simple opinion or value judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do2486, Feb. 8, 1983). Moreover, the method of distinguishing between a certain expression of opinion or whether a simple expression of opinion is an expression of opinion can be determined on the basis of whether it is objectively proven, clear, and historical.

In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

1) The main contents of the notice No. 1 of the instant case are as follows: (a) The main contents of the notice No. 25, August 25, 2010 (hereinafter “instant notice No. 1”); and (b) the content of the notice No. 1 of the instant case are as follows: (a) although the victim reported the deficit of KRW 0,000 per month by using the victim’s representative’s management and illegal personal funds; (c) the victim was granted additional loans with the expected sales plan by means of a false and unrefilled sales plan at the locking point of the bank.

B. The Defendant, when preparing a notice No. 1 of this case at an investigative agency, shall make a judgment on the falsity to himself/herself in the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.