The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles ① Habitual injury in the original judgment: The part of paragraph 1-b of this Article, among the habitual injury in the original judgment: the victim suffers from the food trust doctrine while the defendant was punished. ② Habitual injury in the original judgment, the part of paragraph 1-h (h) of this Article: the defendant was deprived of a teahouse balance.

③ Habitual injury in the judgment of the original court: The habitual injury shall not be recognized in light of the period and frequency of the crime, and the motive of the crime.

④ Interference with the business affairs in the judgment of the court of original instance, and the violation of the Electronic Correspondence Act: The defendant actually operated the business of this case and the victim merely operated the business of this case's assistant, and the defendant reported the closure of the business of the above company or closed the shopping mall site using the victim's certified certificate.

The crime of interference with business affairs or the crime of violation of the Electronic Signature Act is not established.

(5) Crimes of defamation of honor in the original judgment: The defendant is not guilty of defamation because it is not possible to spread the text message of a Hand to the I.

The lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal as to the above part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the judgment on this point.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

[The power of interference with business affairs does not necessarily mean that a person who is engaged in business directly directly terminates to a person who is engaged in the business, but is sufficient to suppress a person's free will.