The judgment below

Of them, the part on fraud is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

Defendant.

Summary of the grounds for appeal

A. Comprehensively taking account of the fact that students consistently stated that the Defendant stated that the entire director of a private teaching institute would be “the director of a private teaching institute” and that there was sufficient motive to spread false facts to the Defendant, who was scheduled to establish a new private teaching institute, the Defendant’s distribution of false facts as stated in this part of the facts charged, thereby obstructing the victim’s operation of a private teaching institute

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. As to the fraud, according to the victim who is the operator of a private teaching institute, the victim and the AA, the person in charge of accounting, the statement of the instructorV and the settlement of tuition fees, etc., the defendant is acknowledged to have obtained the above student by claiming tuition fees from the above student even though the defendant did not take lessons for the said student.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to obstruction of business, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant had an intention to spread false facts, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

① The Defendant consistently asserts that, from an investigative agency to the lower court’s court, there was no fact that students or parents had consistently expressed that they would be directors of a private teaching institute, and that they would have borrowed a new private teaching institute with other students, such as V and W.

Defendant, V, W, etc. appears to have been a major subject of a private teaching institute operated by the victim, and the Defendant was the said students.