The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no fact that the Defendant spreads false facts on the ground that the victim B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim B”) was in default or was in default, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

Although D and G’s statement consistent with the facts charged in the instant case was false, the lower court found the credibility thereof and convicted the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the instant facts charged is a person who served as a field leader of the victim company from March 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016.

1) On September 2016, the Defendant: (a) spreaded false facts in E offices operated by Pyeongtaek-si around the end of September 2016 in the manner that “B is difficult to make it difficult for the Defendant to receive money; (b) thereby impairing the credit of the victim company; (c) at the same time interfered with the victim company; (d) around January 2017, the Defendant committed the crime (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant crimes,” including the crime and the crime around September 2016) by spreading false facts in the manner that “B would make it difficult for the victim company to receive money; (d) would make it difficult for the Defendant to receive money; and (e) interfered with the victim company’s credit by spreading it; and (e) around January 2017, the Defendant committed the crime (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant crimes”) at H offices of the victim company operated by Pyeongtaek-si in Pyeongtaek-si around January 2017, even though the victim company was not insolvent.”

B. According to each evidence of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant was unable to receive money from D and G for the victim company's default and transaction." and the victim company's default.