(In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be acknowledged that the defendants damaged the reputation of the victim by pointing out false facts as stated in the facts charged.

In particular, as multiple suspicions were raised on the parking management of the commercial building management body on or around August 20, 2012, Defendant B, etc. participated and audited on or around August 20, 2012. At the time, the officetel management body confirmed that there was a lot of parking rights because the officetel management body did not notify the transfer status to the commercial building management body, and confirmed that there was a lot of parking rights, and until the following day, the officetel management body decided to arrange the problem of parking rights by providing the details of the right to purchase the right to parking of occupants to the commercial building management body, but the Defendants posted the notice of this case with no confirmation

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the judgment.

Judgment

In order for the crime of defamation to be established under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act to be established, the publicly alleged facts should have been reduced by another person’s social evaluation, and the criminal should have known that such facts were false.

(2) In the case of defamation by the statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the prosecutor stated the facts that constitute the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial, regardless of whether it is a subjective element or an objective element, and thus, there is a prosecutor’s awareness that there was a false fact, and that the alleged facts are not consistent with the objective truth, and that the Defendant stated it with the awareness that it was false.