B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the defendants' act of defamation was not unlawful although the defendants did not know about the alleged facts and there was no reasonable ground to believe that the facts were true

B. The case reversing the judgment of not guilty on the part of the Defendants, which found that the Defendants’ alleged facts were not true and there was no considerable reason to believe that they were true.

Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

In light of the records, the court below's decision that found Defendant 2-2 guilty of the crime of defamation as of June 25, 1992 is justified and there is no error of law like the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

2. We examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

(A) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendants 1 and 2 were the chairperson and vice-chairperson of the 192 council of occupants' representatives located in Seo-gu (hereinafter referred to as "the above victims"), and the defendant 1 was not guilty of the above victims' acts of 00,000,000 won for 10,000,000 won for 20,000,000 won for 10,000,000 won for 20,000,000,000 won for 10,000,000,000 won for 20,000,000 won for 10,000,000,000 won for 20,000,000 won for 20,000,000,000 won for 10,000,000 won for 20,000,00 won for 20,000,00,00 won.

(B) First, the judgment of the court below on Defendant 1's criminal facts of March 9, 192 is consistent with this point in the health stand, records, and there is a statement in the court of first instance and the investigative agency of the council of occupants' representatives that Defendant 1 directly participated in the above mentioned statements, and there is no special circumstance to suspect the credibility of such statements. Nevertheless, the court below rejected only the statements of the victim 1 and 2, which are merely the extent that he did not know about the above-mentioned statements without any judgment, and found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the facts charged. Although the court below's rejection of the statements of the victim 1 and 2 was included in the purport of rejecting the above statements of the victim 1 and 2, it cannot be rejected without any reasonable reason without any direct evidence.

(C) Next, we examine the judgment of the court below on the remaining criminal facts.

Article 310 of the Criminal Act provides that "When the act under Article 307 (1) is true and solely for the public interest, it shall not be punished." Thus, in order to prevent a person from being punished by public disclosure of facts in accordance with the above provision, the act of infringing a person's reputation by openly pointing out facts is objectively related to the public interest, and the act of infringing a person's reputation is also related to the public interest, and the fact should be indicated for the public interest. In addition, if the alleged facts are true or at least the actor believed that they were true, and there should be reasonable grounds to believe that they were true and that they were, then, (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do3160, Jun. 22, 1993; 93Do1035, Jun. 22, 1993).

However, the facts alleged by the Defendants at issue in this case are that the victims, the president of the previous year or the head of the management office, embezzled apartment management fees, and it is clear that these facts are about the interests and interests of the above apartment occupants, and the Defendants asserted that these facts were true because they were judged to be the matters to be known to the occupants. On the other hand, there is no obvious evidence that the Defendants’ principal purpose of the above acts was due to other personal motives. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle regarding the determination that the above facts were about the public interest.

However, according to the health records, each audit report (in the investigation records 60, 67 pages) and the audit report (in the investigation records 37 pages) and the statements from the police of Chuncheon, there was no problem among the occupants in relation to the management of the above apartment until the Defendants were elected as the president and vice-president of the representative council of occupants. However, there was a problem only by stating that there was an objection to the victims who were the president and the director of the management office of the previous year without any specific material after the Defendants’ election. The Defendants raised the issue, upon requesting the certified public accountant from the second half of April 192 to the first half of May of the same year, pointed out that there was a minor fault in the accounting in some accounts from the result of the request made by the certified public accountant on the first half of May of the same year, but it was not revealed that there was no problem in the victims' self-audit records of the same year. After that, even if the Defendants still concluded that there was no problem, it cannot be said that there was no reason for the Defendants to believe that there was no reason for the Defendants to believe that it was true or there.

In addition, the facts alleged by the Defendants themselves are likely to infringe on the social value or evaluation of the victims, and the Defendants were stimulatedly inferred as above, and some criminal facts were committed after the victim 2 submitted a explanatory note at the request of the Defendants on July 14, 192. Thus, there is no intention of defamation against the Defendants.

(D) Ultimately, the court below found the Defendants not guilty on the ground that there was no direct evidence that conforms to the facts charged but there was no evidence, or that there was no reasonable ground to believe that the facts alleged by the Defendants were true, as well as that there was no reasonable ground to believe that the facts alleged by the Defendants were true, did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for excluding the illegality of the crime of defamation or by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for excluding the illegality of the crime of defamation, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the argument that points this out is justified.

3. Therefore, the appeal by Defendant 2 is dismissed, and the prosecutor's appeal is accepted, but the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 2's guilty and not guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the part as to Defendant 2 among the judgment below is also reversed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)