The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

[Judgment on the Reasons for Appeal] Summary of the Reasons for Appeal ① at the time when the Defendant avoided disturbance as stated in Paragraph (1) of the decision of the court below, the victim D’s “E Department” operated by the Defendant did not have a patient being treated and there was no possibility that the above dental practice could be interfered

(2) The transmission to reporters by e-mail of the video files in which the victim assaults F, like paragraph (3) of the decision of the court below, was made by the defendant. Thus, it constitutes a ground for excluding illegality as provided in Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

(3) The sentencing of the court below (2 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

(F) As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to obstruction of business operations on the market, the lower court also asserted the same purport, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined, and rejected the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons in the part of “decision on the Defendant and the

In addition to the circumstances presented by the court below on the basis of conviction, the witness G of the trial court (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant has taken CCTV before viewing CCTV, so the patient who was receiving the medical examination and treatment by the Vice-President (J) has been memoryed. At the time, due to the disturbance of the defendant at the time, the defendant stated that "I issued a direction that all employees should cancel a pre-contract that could have been taken and cancelled," the defendant could sufficiently be recognized as having interfered with the victim's duties concerning the operation of the above dental services by avoiding disturbance as described in the facts charged. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

It is not punishable to defame a person by publicly alleging facts as to the assertion of misconception of facts about defamation.