As stated in the judgment of the court below, the defendants' act is justified because the defendants' act is for the public interest, since the contents of Internet bulletin board and inducement are all true, and this is written for the legitimate interest of the owners of E apartments.

The punishment imposed by the court below on the Defendants (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In order for the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act to be established as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the criminal should publicly indicate the fact, and the alleged fact should have undermined people's social evaluation, and should have been falsely recognized as false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4757, Feb. 25, 2000). If the important part here is consistent with objective facts, there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression in the detailed contents.

Although it cannot be viewed as a false fact, in determining whether it is a false fact, it should be determined whether it is an important part that is not consistent with objective facts by examining the purport of the whole contents of the alleged fact.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the court below, and by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the court below, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the court below. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the court below, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the court below, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the court below.