All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court determined that “A building which had been silentd for several years” was not a 1st class fire safety controller at the same time and place as the facts charged in the lower judgment, and that “A building which had been subject to 1st class fire safety control” was posted to the occupants. However, in so long as it was found that the facts charged in the instant case were not guilty on the ground that (i) the amount was concealed, (ii) the amount was imposed on the management fee for April, and (iii) the resident was b.2 million won per month, and (iv) the management fee imposed on the resident should be collected, and (iv) the management fee imposed on the resident should be collected, and (v) the liability should be imposed should be imposed.” In so doing, the lower court did not err on the grounds that there was no proof of the crime of defamation by sending it to the 148 households of the above apartment owner by registered mail around June 12, 2018, which caused the victim’s reputation by openly alleging false facts.”

As to this, only the Defendants appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment below, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the acquittal portion of the reasoning.

However, if the first instance court found the defendant guilty only for a part of the facts charged which is a simple crime, even if the defendant appealed, the appeal can be tried on the part of the acquittal.

Supreme Court Decision 2001.2

9. In light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below on the part that acquitted the defendant at the court below is just and acceptable, and the conclusion of this part of the court below is maintained as it is.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is not a legitimate manager.