The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) of the defendant's statement in the crime list as stated in the judgment below is merely an expression of the victim's opinion or value judgment on the fund ability of the constructor operated by the injured party, not an expression of false facts.

Even if the Defendant’s statement revealed false facts about the victim’s credit, the Defendant did not recognize that it was false.

2. Determination

A. The distribution of false facts in the crime of undermining credit is spreading past or present facts (including past facts when it is possible to prove such facts by evidence) that do not conform with the objective truth, and it does not constitute a mere expression of opinion or value judgment of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do2486, Feb. 8, 1983). In addition, when distinguishing between whether the statement is a fact or authorization of opinion, the determination should be made in consideration of the overall circumstances, such as the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the possibility of proof, and the context where the notice in question was used.

In addition, it is required that one person actively perceived that the fact he distributed was false at the time of the act (Supreme Court Decision 93Do1278 delivered on January 28, 1994). b) The first of all, as to each statement described in Nos. 1 through 4 in the crime list as stated in the judgment of the court below, the part in which the defendant expressed his opinion or value judgment (referred to as the "deflution of inside E E", No. 3 in the crime list No. 4 in the end) but this part is merely a part, and as a whole, the construction cost that the injured person paid by the defendant was embezzled in another place.

A company that is operated by the victim is able to become insolvent.

The building in another construction site where the injured party is performing the construction work under the contract will go beyond the auction.

“To the effect,” the victim’s ability to pay or intent to pay.