A. Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles are true, and the defendant believed that the contents of the instant printed article are true, and distributed the printed article of this case for public interest by notifying the occupant of the said contents to the effect that the unjust operation of the apartment. Thus, the court below convicting the defendant of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (2 million won in penalty) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the content of the instant inducement was false, and so, Article 310 of the Criminal Act does not apply.

In view of the facts charged of this case, the lower court convicted the Defendant.

A) ① The fact alleged by the Defendant is that it is difficult to recognize direct relevance with the victim as to the fact that D had been employed by the victim as the chairperson of the representative meeting of occupants before the victim was appointed as the chairperson of the representative meeting of occupants; ② the Defendant also recognized the fact that the victim did not directly participate in the illegal election at his/her request (Evidence No. 131 page); ③ the management director F was in office from March 1, 201 to April 30, 2013, and was used on March 19, 2013 and was subject to the examination of White Blood disease on March 22, 2013 and was subject to hospital treatment from March 21, 2013; ② the Defendant was dispatched from the management entity to April 30, 2013 to the management director, and the Defendant was dispatched from the management entity to the management entity to which he/she belongs.