The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was aware of the fact that parents attending the briefingsan-gu branch was established only by the fact that the Egsan-gu branch was established, and the Egsan branch was divided into the Jung-gu branch and the Nam-gu branch and thus the South-gu branch did not provide social service business any longer.

Although there is no time to speak, the lower court: (a) discovered such false information by the Defendant, thereby interfering with the victim’s business; (b)

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The court below held that the injured party participated in D or briefing sessions.

The above witness's statement has credibility after directly reporting and observing the appearance, attitude, consistency, clarity, and the physical strength of his statement by directly examining the J as a witness.

The court found the above witness guilty of the facts charged of this case by taking account of other evidences.

B. The J received text messages from the lower court that held an explanatory meeting around May 10, 2014.

Although it is not clear whether the defendant is the defendant in the briefing session, there was a statement from any male to the purport that the South-gu branch and the Jung-gu branch are divided into the Nam-gu branch and the Jung-gu branch, and thus, the Jung-gu branch is operating, so that the member's application for membership is prepared.

In light of the fact that the above statement made by the J was consistent with D’s statement that the present person participated in the presentation at the time, and that the J did not appear to have been able to make a false statement without any actual experience, and that there were no circumstances or motives to make a false statement, the above statement made by the J was credibility, and otherwise, the lower court’s judgment as to the credibility of the above statement was clearly erroneous.

There are no special circumstances to see.

(c).