The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be determined by a fine of KRW 1,00,000.

Defendant. A fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. With respect to each defamation part of the charges of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant distributed documents, such as the facts charged, in order to discover the suspicion of embezzlement of the president D, to inform the union members thereof, and to urge D to disclose the details of the expenditure of the union related to the above charges in a transparent manner based on the C Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “Union”)’s list of deposits and disbursement books.

The whole contents of the documents are nothing more than the statement of facts in the statement of the defendant, or they do not constitute a statement of facts, or they do not indicate false facts, and even if false facts are true based on objective data, the defendant is mistaken for true facts and for public interest, so illegality is dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

With respect to the part obstructing the 2nd of the facts charged, the Defendant calculated the contributions of the members based on the method of calculating his own name and did not spread false facts to the members.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting each of the charges of this case.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly admitted after examining the facts charged.

As shown in the facts charged, the Defendant entered into an agreement with H to pay KRW 300 million at the general meeting cost for the selection of the contractor as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant paid KRW 1.446 billion from the head of the Tong of the union and paid KRW 1.146 billion, which is the difference, not the embezzlement of the head of the association D (victim) but what is the difference.

“The purport of this case,” and