A. In regard to the mistake of facts ① the offense of insult of each offense in the judgment of the court below, each statement made by the defendant to the complainant did not have a public performance, and the complainant's planned self-help and thus, the illegality should be avoided. ② As to the offense of interference with business, the complainant cannot be said to have interfered with the election commission's business because the complainant was prepared individually at the time, and ③ as to the offense of defamation, the defendant's act is justified as a legitimate performance of duties to satisfy the right of the occupant's right to know.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending each fact or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Not on the grounds of unfair sentencing

However, in light of the fact that the defendant is reappointed as the president of the council of occupants' representatives and faithfully performs his duties, and the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the sentence of the court below that sentenced the defendant a fine of KRW 1,500,000 is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant's insulting remarks are acknowledged as having a possibility of spreading to many unspecified or unspecified persons at the time of the crime of interference with the defendant's business, and it is sufficiently recognized that the complainant prepared an inquiry in order to ask the competent authority about whether to accept the resignation of the representative of the council of occupants' representatives and the chairperson at the time of the crime of interference with the defendant's business, and the circumstances, means and methods of each insult and defamation committed by the above evidence, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act was committed in the first instance by the complainant or as a legitimate act.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is just, and there are errors in the misapprehension of legal principles or mistake of facts.