A. Fact-misunderstanding ① The victim did not actually negotiate with the construction company on February 16, 2015 after extracting the list of defects on February 16, 2015 with respect to the 10-year 10-year 10-year 10-year 10-year 10-year 10-year 10 years 10-5 10 years 1 years 1 years 2 years 2 years 2 years 2 years 2 years 2, 2015 2 years 2 years 2.

There were considerable circumstances to suspect, and it was unnecessary to replace parking control systems, and ③ even if the victim did not clearly dismiss the security guards “de-commissioning,” the issue of how to take the attitude to the extent is called so-called “A” can be deemed as falling under the so-called “de-examination.” Since the victim’s act has ceased to exist, the Defendant’s remarks cannot be deemed as a false statement of fact, or the Defendant recognized that the Defendant was false.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, since the defendant committed the act of this case for the public interest such as normalization of the representative meeting and management affairs of the apartment tenant of this case, the illegality is dismissed.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, the Defendant, while recognizing that the content of his statement was false, damaged the reputation of the victim by pointing out false facts, and the Defendant’s act was for the public interest, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegality of the Defendant’s act is unreasonable. Therefore, this part of the Defendant

(1) A victim shall not be related to the difference between one year to five years of the expiration of the period of warranty against defects.