The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. Among the evidence that correspond to the facts charged in this case of mistake of facts, each statement of I, J, H, K, L, M, and N is not reliable, and it is forged that the career counseling will be conducted.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts by recognizing the facts charged based on the above evidence.

B. Although the Defendant made the same remarks as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, it was natural to make the remarks during the process of protest, and there was no criminal intent to impair the honor of the victim, and such remarks cannot be viewed as a statement of fact.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to defamation’s intentional act or statement of fact by finding all of the aforementioned parts guilty.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the facts charged in this case were realized by a single act that the Defendant interfered with the duties of the care center by causing a disturbance to the contents of a caregiver’s reputation at the same time and at the same place on three occasions, respectively, prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, and the crime of interference with business and defamation by each date (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do10233, Feb. 23, 2007), notwithstanding the fact that the crime of interference with business and defamation by deeming the above crime of interference with business as concurrent crimes and defamation was committed, the lower court committed an unlawful act, and that such illegality affected the judgment, and in this regard, the lower court was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

B. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, each of the statements made by I, J, H, K, L, M, and N is relatively consistent and consistent.