The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

② Next, in relation to defamation, the Defendant did not say that he was “the victim is a mentally ill person,” and the Defendant was aware that he had no knowledge of the Defendant’s house at the time of the instant case, and thus did not have any awareness of the falsity, and thus did not have awareness of the falsity. The Defendant’s remarks to the employees of the management office, such as the head of the management office, etc. in the apartment house management office cannot be deemed to have a possibility of spreading or a performance by speaking with the victim. Meanwhile, under the apartment management rules, the Defendant’s remarks do not constitute a justifiable act in that the Defendant had a right to inform the management authority of the facts concerning noise between floors as the occupants who suffered

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges of this case guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the defendant and G, as married couple, who reside in H Apartment-gu 106 Dong 2001, Daegu Suwon-gu H Apartment-gu, and there has been conflict between I and J married couple and noise problems.

1. On January 24, 2014, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act: (a) the phrase that the police officer K called “I” is not an attorney-at-law, even if he is not an attorney-at-law.