The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the factual defamation among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not take appropriate measures to prevent defamation by eliminating sensitive contents such as the delinquency in payment of rent or the fact of seizure against D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D Co., Ltd.”), and thus, the Defendant’s act of defamation cannot be deemed as a justifiable act. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the grounds for the rejection of illegality.

B. As to the violation of defamation and interference with business due to the assertion of false facts among the facts charged in the instant case, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, even if the Defendant acknowledged the fact that false facts were alleged as the facts charged, the court below acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to view it as false.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The Defendant is a director in charge of business of C Co., Ltd.

Around April 17, 2013, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant”) filed a disposition of prohibition of business prohibition and prohibition of manufacture and sale of the products of the complainant to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C Co., Ltd.”) but dismissed the disposition. Since the decision of dismissal of provisional disposition was made, the appeal court was under way without the final decision made by the

On September 11, 2014, the Defendant posted a statement on the C’s website at the office located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, stating the unilateral assertion of C in the process of hearing the above provisional disposition case, and on the website through the pop-up shop.