A. In addition, the Defendant made a mistake of facts not only the victim’s speech that was directly made by the previous victim, but also the Defendant did not have the victim who was living in the next house at the time of making the said speech within the house, but also did not have the victim, so there was no intention or public performance of defamation.

Therefore, even though the defendant did not constitute defamation, the court below erred by finding the defendant guilty and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the following circumstances, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty is just and it cannot be said that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by admitting the facts as erroneous and admitting the facts.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① Multi-household housing in which the Defendant and the victim reside is not soundproofing, and there have been many disputes over noise problems among neighbors.

Since 2017, the defendant and the injured party also have a big and small dispute over the noise problem. On October 28, 2017, the victim, who suffered from the death, had a relation to the defendant's front door with golf bonds around 23:30 on October 28, 2017.

(2) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant seems to have humped himself by intentionally generating noise, etc., and had a good appraisal as stated in the judgment of the court below. (3) At the time of the instant case, it seems that the Defendant was humped to himself/herself by intentionally generating noise.

(3) The defendant shall have directors in a multi-household.