The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (i.e., defamation, the Defendant sent text messages to F members, etc. as stated in the facts charged regarding the Victim G. However, this is not guilty since the Defendant was aware that at the time the use of public funds by the victim was true and that the use of public funds by the victim was dismissed for the public interest.

With regard to the obstruction of business, the defendant sent text messages, as described in the facts charged, to F members on August 2010. However, the first victim's notification that he/she would not hold a monthly meeting in order to avoid his/her responsibility is unfair, and the defendant's notification that he/she would not hold the monthly meeting is given to the secretary general of the secretariat, thereby obstructing the defendant's business operation, which is subject to punishment, cannot be deemed to interfere with the defendant's business operation. Thus, the defendant's act cannot be deemed to interfere with the defendant's business operation, which is subject to punishment.

B. The sentencing of the first instance court on the unfair sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to defamation, namely, at the time when the Defendant sent text messages to the victim G to the effect that he/she committed an act of corruption, such as the utilization of public funds, as the chairperson of the Marine Corps, as the chairperson of the first instance court, K or L had filed a civil petition against the victim, who is the chairperson of the Marine Corps, with respect to the receipt of money by K or L, under the name of operating a restaurant or storage of container, but the victim asserted that the case was initially handled solely by M&D and was related to the operation of the Marine Corps F of the Marine Corps with respect to L, and the Defendant did not disclose the details of the accounts properly.