A. Although the Defendant’s act of distributing the same document as the Defendant’s decision with regard to the crime of impairing reputation was inconsistent with the content of the crime of impairing reputation, the victim’s reputation was not damaged, and there was no intention of public performance or defamation, and there was no risk of interference with the victim’s business actually, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Judgment on the misunderstanding of the legal principles 1) The content of “a lease agreement was concluded at an inappropriate price without undergoing a meeting of the E community without undergoing a meeting of the E community,” and “a person opposing the smuggling agreement” that part of the crime of defamation of reputation was committed as a representative of the D community meeting by E unfairly performing duties.

As pointed out, it is an expression that may undermine the social value or evaluation of the victim.

Meanwhile, the criminal intent as a subjective element of the crime of defamation is satisfied by recognizing the fact that an actor causes damage to the reputation of the victim, and is not required to have a purpose of defamation (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do5143, Jun. 9, 200). The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, entered into a lease agreement with the Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd. around February 26, 2015, the Defendant attended the village meeting held by D Village Association on January 22, 2015, which was the previous owner, to determine whether to enter into the said lease agreement, and E entered into an advance smuggling contract.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to find out special reasons for suspicion (the defendant himself acknowledges that E does not have any grounds for concluding a prior contract, and the 106 pages of the investigation records).