All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) The victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) operated by the victim of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles

J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “J”) after January 2017

() Although the Defendant did not receive a product from the Defendant, he produced “G” products as raw materials supplied by the former J and sold them until March 9, 2017. Therefore, at the time of posting this article in the H account on February 26, 2017, the Defendant stated false facts as if the victim company used other raw materials to create “K” and “K”. In addition, the Defendant was found to have a purpose of slandering the Defendant, considering the personal history that the Defendant worked as the victim’s agent before leaving his job as the principal agent, and the expressions on H notices, etc., which were written in the victim’s office. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is dangerous ingredients for pregnant or nursing women and children, so the Defendant cannot be deemed to have indicated false facts, and the Defendant is likely to have adverse effects by using a clogram, from a consumer’s standpoint, and there was no purpose of slandering this part of the facts charged. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment on the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is as indicated in its reasoning.