Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The defendant is the chairperson of the Gwangjin-gu Seoul apartment tenant representative meeting, and the victim F is the representative of the above apartment commercial building management group, and has been disputed with each other due to the use of the parking lot.

On August 13, 2014, the Defendant posted a notice on the bulletin board of the above apartment, and the fact that the injured party did not have filed a civil or criminal lawsuit against the representative meeting of the occupants of the apartment on the ground of defamation and false distribution, etc., the Defendant included “the public notice on the opening of the general meeting of occupants of the apartment complex” as one of the “legal response through the appointment of the attorney-at-law for the allegation that the management of the commercial building has been limited” as an agenda.

As a result, the Defendant had damaged the reputation of the victim by pointing out false facts as if the victim had brought an unfair lawsuit against the representative meeting of apartment occupants.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to public announcement of holding a general meeting for residents of urgent apartments;

1. Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 307 (2) of the Selection of Punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that since the victim sent twice the public door to the defendant's side that he would put the various legal procedures, there was no awareness of the fact that it is false. Further, the expression " South Korea" is merely value assessment and cannot be viewed as a statement of fact. In light of the whole contents of the public notice of this case, it is a somewhat exaggerated expression, and the defendant's act constitutes an act for the public interest and thus the illegality is dismissed.

However, the prosecutor submitted.