The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Fact-finding 1) On May 30, 2018, as to defamation, the Defendant’s statement was not false, but was true, and the Defendant was also subject to verification procedures other than D’s telephone calls. Furthermore, the place where the Defendant stated the contents of D’s telephone call is the council of occupants’ representatives, and the other party is also the victim-friendly. Even if the Defendant’s statement is false, the Defendant believed that D’s statement was true in light of other circumstances, and there was considerable reason to believe that D’s statement was true, and the content was also also dismissed as it was for the public interest of apartment occupants and its illegality. 2) On June 20, 2018, with respect to defamation around June 20, 2018, the Defendant posted this part of the facts charged in order to clarify the suspicion against the victim, which is unlawful as to the overall public interest and interest of the apartment complex.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the defendant's argument and convicted all the charges of this case in detail in the "decision on the defendant's and his defense counsel's argument" column in the judgment. If the judgment of the court below is examined closely in comparison with the evidence legitimately adopted and examined, such judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant.

The defendant, in particular, around May 30, 2018, has undergone confirmation of all the timely contents about the victim.