The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 1.0 million won.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable since the sentence of the lower court (a fine of 1.5 million won, a fine of 1.5 million won, and a fine of 1 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The Defendants’ crime of obstructing business operation and impairing reputation on July 16, 2015 refers to all victims at the same time, place, and so on, the Defendants constituted a single act that “the Defendants had been subject to fraud, but was converted to fraud,” and that there was an ordinary competition relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

Although it is reasonable to see that the above crimes are in a substantive concurrent relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do10233, Feb. 23, 2007).

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below aggravated punishment is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants' unfair assertion of sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

[Grounds for a new judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Defendant A of the pertinent legal provision on criminal facts: In full view of the facts charged under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act, and the facts charged by the lower court and the protocol of public trial in the lower court, it is clear that he/she is prosecuted for factual defamation. As such, Article 307(2) of the indictment’s “Article 307(2)” is amended to “the indictment is deemed as a clerical error.”

(Defamation) Defendants: Articles 314(1) and 30(a) of the Criminal Act and Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act and the protocol of trial at the lower court are considered as a whole.