The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not defame the Defendant by posting false facts on the ground that the victim D, while talking with F and the victim D, made it clear that F would demand rebates to F and make it possible for F to receive the development fund. As such, the Defendant did not defame F by posting false facts.

In addition, the defendant believed that the notice as stated in Paragraph (1) of the facts charged of this case was true and there is a justifiable reason to believe that it was, and the defendant posted such writing on behalf of the officetel residents, and the defendant's act was for the public interest and was not for the purpose of slandering the victim.

(B) The Defendant’s assertion that the illegality is excluded pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act is determined as above. Furthermore, the Defendant posted the same article as stated in Paragraph (2) of the facts charged in the instant case for the public interest, which is the interest of the entire occupants and the development of the basic society, and thus, the illegality of insult among the facts charged in the instant case is excluded as a legitimate act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous or erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, in particular, the victim D, F, and H’s statement at the lower court’s court’s court court’s trial, each of the following facts: (a) did not demand rebates from the victim D’s representative on or around November 2011; (b) was ordered to increase the service cost to the red-interest facility management (owner) due to the increase of minimum wage; and (c) the Defendant did not receive rebates from the red-interest facility management (owner) during that process, even though the Defendant did not have received rebates, the victim D requested the president to make rebates as described in paragraph (1) of the facts charged, and around May 201, the service cost to the red-interest service profit company was 40,000 monthly.