The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) cited the financial statements of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) (hereinafter “F”), the parent company of the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) in the business proposal. Since F is a special related person having a close relationship with the victim company, F was to inform the victim company of the financial situation because it could affect the victim company, and the university’s financial situation is also aware that F is also indicating the F’s financial situation.

Therefore, the defendant does not damage the credit of the victim company by fraudulent means or interfere with the receipt of application for university admission.

2. Determination:

A. The crime of undermining the credibility of Article 313 of the Criminal Act is established when there is a possibility of spreading false facts or undermining the credibility of people through other fraudulent means. Here, the term “seminating false facts” refers to spreading the past or current facts that do not conform with the truth objectively to the truth, to an unspecified or unspecified person, and the term “defensive scheme” refers to causing misconceptions to the other party or sites in order to achieve the purpose of the actor’s act.

In addition, the criminal intent in the crime of undermining credit does not necessarily require a conclusive intention, and it is sufficient with dolusence as to the fact that there is a situation where there is a concern that the credibility of another person might be undermined as a result of spreading false facts or using other deceptive schemes (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3400, Dec. 7, 2006, etc.). In addition, in the crime of interference with business by deceptive means, the term “defensive means” means that a person who committed an act causes mistake, mistake, or land to another person in order to achieve the purpose of the act, and uses it, and the establishment of a crime of interference with business does not require that the result of interference with business actually occurred, and it is a interference with business.