The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal appealed on the ground of mistake of facts that the Defendant did not harm the honor of the victim (or the victim) by stating his/her false facts, and then withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts in the court of original instance.

2. Ex officio determination of the facts charged of this case: (a) from around 09:30 on April 25, 2012 to around 10:30 on the same day, the Defendant: (b) under the title “(c) the Defendant’s act of illegal interview of (i) Cheongman Underground Sicks through the issuance of false tax invoices, and (iv) the Defendant continued to commit a single comprehensive crime by openly pointing out the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s act of causing damage to the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out the false fact by using the following methods: (i) the issuance of false tax invoices, (ii) the cost of construction, and (iii) the fact of receiving money and valuables between the head of all the site and the cooperative of the (iv) the Hemor Underground Sicks, and (iv) the relationship between Samsung C&T, who implieded the defective construction, from around April 27, 2012; and (ii) from around April 27, 2012, it appears that the Defendant committed a single comprehensive crime against the victim’s reputation.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes of defamation, thereby resulting in concurrent crimes, and thus, the lower court’s judgment was no longer maintained.

3. In conclusion, the court below's decision is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of ex officio reversal, and it is decided as follows.

[Discied Judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to the description of each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.