Defendant

C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Defendant

C does not pay the above fine.

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and by misapprehending the legal principles, and by misapprehending the legal principles, each recording record used as evidence of guilt was prepared on the basis of the material recording the defendants' personal dialogue without the consent of the defendants, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence of guilt. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to admissibility of evidence

(2) All of the Defendants’ remarks are true, and each of the Defendants’ remarks is for the public interest of the residents of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) who are the representatives and members of the council of occupants’ representatives, and thus, illegality is excluded by Article 310 of the Criminal Act or does not violate social rules, and thus, it constitutes a justifiable act stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

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

2. We examine ex officio the Defendants’ grounds for appeal prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

A. 1-A of the facts charged by Defendant A;

(e) ;

(f) , g., H;

No. 2-B of the facts charged by the defendant B and the defendant B

No. 3-D of the reasoning of the facts charged against Defendant C;

H. As to each of the defamations described in paragraph (1), the above Defendant A (A), Defendant A (A), f.g., g., h., h.) made a statement to the effect that, around May 25, 2009, the above Defendant’s 74 apartment residents held in the meeting room of the council of the council of council members’ representatives of apartment houses held in the meeting room of the council of council members’ representatives, and that, around 2009, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that: (a) “I am more than 10 years of the representative, and I am h.e., so that I am the same representative would have strued, so that I would have prevented the victim from committing misconduct.”