The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On December 201, 201, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, inasmuch as C and D posted a banner stating the same content as indicated in paragraph (1) in the judgment of the lower court on December 12, 2011, on the following grounds: (i) defamation (defluence or misunderstanding of legal principles) and defamation (defluence or misunderstanding of legal principles); and (ii) there was no conspiracy between the Defendant and C and D to commit defamation or any participation in such crime; and (iii) the lower court convicted him of this part of the facts charged

D. On May 20, 2012, the Defendant posted a banner stating the same content as that stated in Paragraph (3) of the judgment below around May 20, 2012, along with C and D, with regard to defamation on or around May 20, 2012. However, considering the contents written on the banner, the Defendant did not indicate the name of the victim company and did not refer to the specific company. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s reputation was damaged due to the above act.

In addition, the defendant thought that the victim company occupied and used the road and constructed apartment buildings exceeding the floor area ratio of the house, and the apartment construction of the apartment building of this case posted the above banner because it did not take any corrective measures despite the rupture of the surrounding housing, such as the defendant's house, etc., so the above act of the defendant constitutes grounds for excluding illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act where the defendant stated that

B. The obstruction of business (the factual error or misapprehension of the legal principle) was suspended from the victim's scke construction work by hanging the floor inside the floor of the Working Group, which is sckele, and the defendant was only at the scene of C, etc., and the defendant was only at that site. Therefore, the court below convicted of this part of the facts charged, although the defendant did not conspired with C to commit the crime of interference with business or participated in the crime, and the judgment of the court below was erroneous as to the facts charged.