A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) defamation against F. This part of the facts charged is neither a statement of specific facts nor a mere statement of opinion.

2) The Defendant embezzled public funds for defamation against E.

As we think, there was no false perception of fact.

On August 21, 2015, the defendant's act constitutes only when the public interest is true and thus illegal (Article 310.3 of the Criminal Code). The defendant's act is justified (Article 310.3 of the Criminal Code). The defendant's act of appointing attorney-at-law (a) the act of spending attorney-at-law's expenses was decided to file a complaint with F and E at a meeting of occupants' representatives held on August 21,

Therefore, the appointment of the defendant's attorney-at-law is a normal business by a resolution of the tenant representative meeting, so it cannot be viewed as a breach of trust.

B) There is a concern for the Defendant to voluntarily resign from the accounting staffJ.

In order to fill the business gap, G was temporarily employed as accounting personnel in order to fill the business gap.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be viewed as having committed a breach of trust.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) With respect to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, this part of the facts charged is close to the Defendant’s failure to promote the president’s business.

The F (the former Chairperson of the Representative Meeting of Residents of the above apartment) who returns all the residents and ignores the residents, is clear together with the executive officers and officers who have written public funds by dividing public funds, and that he/she compensateed, the “Plaz” has damaged the reputation of the victim F by openly pointing out false facts by posting a banner.

It can be sufficiently viewed that the victim F made a false statement about the victim F as the victim F did not have divided public funds with E, even though the victim F did not have divided public funds into E.

2) defamation against E.