All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles led the defendants to ask questions to the defendants by pretending to be the members of the victimized company F, H, and J as customers, the recording of the contents of the answers made by the defendants by the employees of the victimized company was inadmissible as evidence of unlawful collection, and since F, H, and J are the employees of the victimized company, the contents of which are recorded by the defendants are not admissible as evidence of collection. Since F, H, and J are the employees of the victimized company, there is no possibility of spreading the contents expressed by the defendants, and the defendants explained about the disturbance that was socially problematic at the time, which is an act for the public interest as a true fact, the court below convicted the defendants, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (a fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the other hand, the court below's finding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to whether "each recording recording" adopted by the court below as evidence of guilt against the defendants was illegally collected evidence, and the defendants voluntarily responded to the questions of residents including the injured company employees, and the employees of the victimized company in this case who recorded the contents of the defendants' answers in order to collect evidence cannot be said to be the evidence illegally collected by recording the contents of the defendants' answers (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do240, Mar. 28, 1997). Furthermore, it cannot be said that the "each recording recording" recorded by the court below as evidence of guilt against the defendants is inadmissible.

(B) In addition, the Defendants have consented to the “each recording” as evidence in the court of original instance when they have led to confession of each crime at the court of original instance. Then, the Defendants’ performance in the crime of defamation can be recognized as a public performance.