On January 11, 2012, the Defendant prepared and distributed to the residents of 507 Dong-dong, such as C Apartment-si, 507 Dong-dong, 1202 residents D, etc., who are the chairperson of the Dong-dong, “The current representative and some Dong-dong representatives do not use approximately approximately KRW 86 million management expenses according to due process, but intend to arbitrarily dismiss those who violate or supervise their opinions.”

However, there was no fact that the victim tried to arbitrarily dismiss the person who does not use the management fee according to the due process and independently executes the management fee, or violates his opinion or supervises and supervises it.

The Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

2. In order to establish the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the criminal must publicly indicate the fact, and the fact should have been reduced in people’s social evaluation, and should have been recognized as false by the criminal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do4757, Feb. 25, 2000). On the other hand, in a case where an essential part is consistent with objective facts, there is a little exaggeration or exaggeration of the truth in detail.

Even if it is not a false fact, it cannot be viewed as false fact.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendant’s assertion of facts as to the Defendant’s assertion of facts as to the Defendant’s assertion of facts as alleged in the above appeal, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of facts, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Rather, the trial of this case is held.