1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment maintained by the lower court as to each of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court determined that the Defendant, despite being aware that the term of office of the victim, who is the chairperson of the C apartment election commission, is still in existence, thereby impairing the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by stating that “the chairperson and one member of the election management commission, who is the chairperson and one member of the election management commission, are not qualified due to the termination of the term of office,” in the presence of each apartment resident, etc. on March 21, 2011 and around 10:35 of the same month.” Examining the evidence adopted by the first instance judgment maintained by the lower court in light of the record, the lower court’s above fact-finding is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there

However, in order to establish the crime of defamation ex officio, a statement of fact must be made, and the alleged facts should be made so that it could infringe on the social value or evaluation of a specific person.

However, the content of the Defendant’s statement in this case is a value-oriented expression that the Defendant lost the eligibility of the chairman of the Election Commission due to the expiration of its term of office, not due to the victim’s misconduct or defect, and is well known around that fact.

It can not be said that there is a possibility that the social value or evaluation of the victim may be infringed.

In this respect, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the statement of facts in the crime of defamation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to each of the facts charged in the instant case, the evidence adopted by the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and records.