The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A 1,500,000 won, Defendant B 1,000,000 won, and Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants A: (1) As to defamation, it is difficult to view that the social evaluation of the victim was lowered due to the official document dispatched by the Defendant, and the above content is not false as it is invalid due to the procedure and content of the official document dispatched by the victim. It is not a false fact that it is true and is solely related to the public interest or an act that does not violate social rules. (2) As to interference with business, the Defendant sent a written withdrawal on January 28, 2013 by content-certified mail. The above written withdrawal was sent by the Defendant, who was not sent to the “chairperson” of G Joint, and was subject to disciplinary action (the expulsion) on February 1, 2013 on the ground that it was not a self-written signature, and thus, the Defendant maintained the status of the branch president at the time of sending an official document for extraordinary general meeting on January 28, 2013, and the Defendant’s act was a legitimate business performance, and it does not violate the pertinent social rules as to the victim.

3) Defendant C: Defendant C’s speech cannot be deemed to constitute a crime of insult by harming the victim’s reputation by blocking its content. Even if Defendant’s above act constitutes insult, it does not constitute an offense that does not violate social rules. Defendant D’s notice and content are not false, but merely for the public interest, and thus, it is not recognized as a purpose of defamation.

(b) Public prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts about the acquitted part) ① The part not guilty against Defendant A in writing, and the part sent by the victim.