The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

1. The purport of the grounds for appeal is that, in a case where a housing redevelopment project is not carried out, the amount of the investment can be considered as damages. Thus, the phrase of the banner of this case is false.

The defendants are not allowed to install a banner stating the warning phrase for the local residents, and there was no intention to interfere with the work of the victims.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is those who oppose the establishment of the Busan Southern-gu District Housing Association, and the victim G is the chairman of the Promotion Committee of the District Housing Association, and the victim E is the representative director of the said District Housing Association F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

From August 1, 2015 to August 20, 2015, Defendants conspired to post one banner (90cm x 3m) to oppose the establishment of the regional housing association in Busan Southern-gu, Busan-gu, and interfered with the establishment of the victim G association and the distribution agency business of the victim E by inserting a false statement that “the entire amount of development investment funds can be paid in the event of failure of the regional housing association.”

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the following evidence.

(c)

1) The phrase “the dissemination of false facts” in the crime of interference with business affairs refers to the dissemination of facts that are objectively inconsistent with the truth, and does not constitute mere expression of opinion or value judgment.

In distinguishing whether the subject is a fact or an opinion, the determination shall be made in consideration of the overall circumstances, such as the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the possibility of proof, the context in which the language in question was used, the social situation at the time, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do24, Mar. 24, 1998).