A. There is only dispute over mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles concerning defamation.

① Defendant A, the president of the apartment feminite, sent to Defendant B a document stating the details of the delivery of children’s day books and the payment of the price to the same representative upon the request of the council of occupants’ representatives presented an agenda on embezzlement of female funds. As such, Defendant A, the president of the apartment feminite, only distributed the document to the same representative as explanatory materials, the Defendants did not have the intent of defamation against the victim, and did not invite to commit the instant crime.

(2) The contents of the explanatory note are not false, and as long as they have been distributed to the representatives of the apartment council of occupants' representatives, the crime of defamation is not established.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of the victim G’s statement without credibility, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(3) As the content of the explanatory note is true and solely for the public interest, the illegality of defamation is dismissed.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of two million won, Defendant B: a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the difference between the method of assessing the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court in accordance with the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the principle of court-oriented trial, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court and the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court until the closing