All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) actually accepted D at an unreasonably low price through an unlawful method, such as the so-called “Ambreging”, the time leading, pressure, and interference with the implementation of the project through a lawsuit, and thus, the Defendant’s statement is not false.

B. The sentence (one million won of a fine) imposed on the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. In determining whether the facts alleged in the crime of defamation by a statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act are false, if the contents differ from the truth or are merely a somewhat exaggerated expression in light of the overall purport of the alleged facts, it shall not be deemed as false, but if the important part does not coincide with the objective facts, it shall be deemed as false.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Do12430 Decided March 13, 2014). B.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the fact alleged by the defendant is deemed to be false since the important part of the fact is not consistent with the objective facts.

We examine the part that the acquisition of Q and R land from the side of the victimized Company constitutes an illegal almbling machine.

In a criminal case where the defendant alleged that the act of acquiring land on the part of the victimized company constitutes the crime of interference with business, and the prosecutor filed a complaint against the victimized company on December 23, 2009. The defendant appealed, but the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office dismissed the above appeal on April 1, 2010.

In addition, D, a corporation, claiming that the above acquisition of the victimized company constitutes a tort, and filed a lawsuit for damages against the victimized company, but the court of first instance, on November 13, 2009, did not allow the above acquisition to the extent permitted by the law and order.