The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) does not have any statement to F as stated in the facts constituting a crime as indicated in the judgment below, and the victim first demanded 5 million won to the defendant, and the victim subsequently demanded 10 million won to increase the amount of KRW 10 million and then demanded 8 million by reducing it again. Thus, the defendant merely stated true facts and does not indicate false facts.

In addition, the defendant's act is for the overall interest of apartment occupants, and it also constitutes "the public interest" under Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, although the defendant was found not guilty, the court below found him guilty of the facts charged in this case on the premise of a statement of false facts. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is the representative of C(ju). From May 7, 2014 to August 15, 2014, the Defendant performed the landscaping construction of D Apartment at Guri-si with the subsidies of Guri-si from Guri-si. In the process of the construction, there was conflict between the victim E, who is the director of the above apartment management office, as a matter of the settlement of defects in landscaping construction and additional construction cost, such as the use of waste-related stones, examination of pine trees, etc.

On September 4, 2014, the payment of landscaped construction cost was delayed, and the victim failed to pay the landscaped construction cost from the old viewing to the above apartment council account on September 4, 2014, but it was thought that the victim was unable to pay the construction cost due to the above conflict, with the intention to spread false information about the victim.

1. On September 5, 2014, the Defendant called F, the president of the above apartment council, around 11:00, in spite of the fact that the victim did not have to demand personal money to the Defendant, the Defendant again demanded the victim of this KRW 10 million to the Director of the Management Office.