명예훼손
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant has used E management expenses.
Since there is a good reason to believe, illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Code.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, from July 2012 to July 2, 2012, is a person who operates a “D driving school” as referred to in 201 and 202, Seo-gu, Seoyang-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, a person who works as a general manager for the management of the said building, and
On December 2, 2013, the Defendant was a full-time member of the management of the above building.
E, even though there is no fact that part of the cost of maintaining a building is individually useful, the maintenance cost shall be deducted in a way that sets the maintenance cost incurred in the management of the building at approximately KRW 20,000 per time, such as setting the cost of maintaining the building at KRW 70,000,000 as a result of this study to determine the cost of maintaining the building at KRW 10,000,000,000 per time, as the title "Public Notice Notice of Building Owners" as the title "(E) of "Public Notice of Building Owners".
The elevator construction work was conducted by taking up KRW 8.5 million in 201, and the former operator removed KRW 20,000 out of KRW 1,50,000 per month the elevator maintenance fee, and it cannot be confirmed that the elevator construction cost has been fully paid.
“A public notice stating false facts to the effect that “,” was prepared and distributed to the lessee and sectional owners of the above building, thereby impairing the honor of the victim.
B. The judgment of the court below is not understood to mean that part of the repair cost is delivered to the victim, on the ground that the management office F, which stated that the elevator repair company (I) employees talk with the defendant, merely stated that the reason for cleaning costs was “in the event of a light survey, a person is engaged in personnel management” rather than other places, and that it is not understood to mean that part of the repair cost is delivered to the victim (this purport is the F.C. submitted by the defendant).