The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine) sent e-mail with respect to the business of the Defendant Company I (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), a representative director, to E, etc., who is the business partner, as described in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “instant e-mail”). This is merely an act related to the Defendant’s own business and does not interfere with the business of the Victim D (hereinafter “victim”).

On the other hand, the Defendant sent the instant e-mail to its customer E, etc., and did not send it to many and unspecified persons, and thus, it does not constitute a case of spreading false facts.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court’s judgment, namely, ① the defendant or the victim company is of a distinct character, and the defendant established the victim company together with theO, and held part of the shares of the victim company in the name of the defendant’s wife P, etc., that the defendant or the defendant company is practically identical with the victim company or controls the victim company by the defendant.

It cannot be seen that the addressee of the instant e-mail prepared and sent by the Defendant had a transactional relationship with the Defendant, but at the time of the instant case, there was a new transaction relationship with the victim by entering into a goods storage contract with the Defendant.

E, F, and G (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the clients of this case”) are persons in charge of purchase, and ③ The e-mail of this case is “the victim company has no sufficient financial resources, is vulnerable to theft prevention facilities, etc., and all site employees of the victim company are employed.”