The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is merely a fact that the victim’s work corporation I (hereinafter “I”) was aware that he was punished by a fine for negligence, but did not defame the victim as stated in the facts charged.

The testimony of the above witness K, F, and G is not reliable as the witness K, F, and G are those whose interests conflict with the defendant.

Even if the defendant made a statement that could impair the reputation of the victim, it is intended to protect the lessee's property rights and rights and interests of about 1,200 households in the process of raising the issue of the sale promotion committee, so the illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Code.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant argued the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion in detail with the detailed statement on the lower court’s judgment at the bottom of “a summary of evidence” column. In light of the records, the lower court’s determination is acceptable, in view of the following: (a) the victim was subject to a disposition of suspension of business for one month on November 18, 2013, due to the fact that the victim was a housing manager working in I, who was not subject to any criminal punishment prior to his/her work, and (b) the victim was paid wages to an employee who was not at the former market on November 18,

Furthermore, with respect to the Defendant’s assertion that the illegality of Article 310 of the Criminal Act constitutes grounds for the exclusion of illegality, as long as the Defendant stated false facts in the facts charged, such act as stated in the Defendant’s facts charged cannot be seen as falling under the solely pertaining to the public interest as a true fact under Article 310 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4786, Jul. 9, 2015).