All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. In light of the contents and nature of the victim’s criminal records, the scope of the other party to whom the publication was made, the method of expression, and the degree of infringement of honor that may be damaged or damaged by the expression as stated in the summary of the grounds for appeal, the publication of the notice of this case by the Defendants cannot be deemed as an act of excluding illegality in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

However, the court below affirmed this and rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charge of this case against the Defendants. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 310 of the Criminal Act and misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the Defendants’ act of publishing the instant written public notice appears to be for the benefit of the entire residents of the apartment complex as indicated in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “the instant apartment complex”). As such, even if there were any other private interest or motive or motive incidentally different, the illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act should be excluded.

(1) In relation to the status of a victim, the victim shall be the same representative at the time, who has higher acceptance limit than the general residents.

② In light of the content and nature of the facts, the victim’s previous convictions stated in the instant public announcement are punished for defamation by pointing out false facts about the president of the resident representative meeting at the time of around 2006, or for assault against the president of the resident representative meeting at the time of around 2008. As such, the part of the Defendants’ grounds for dismissal of the said representative’s assertion against the victim, which is “a representative who disfounded with another representative and causes a miscontest with another representative,” or the part of the said public announcement, which is “a representative by putting out the unfounded arguments.”