The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence against the Defendants is published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: the Defendants distributed printed materials attached to the instant judgment [Seoul Western District Court Decision 2010Gohap95, 201Gohap36, 1, 2011Gohap36, 200) to the residents of the D redevelopment area; the Defendants, the representative director of H (hereinafter “H”) selected as the D’s rearrangement business, committed an act with the intent to prevent damage to local residents by knowing the fact that the victims were convicted of having been found guilty in relation to the redevelopment business; thus, the Defendants did not have any intention to impair the reputation of the victims, or did not have any true fact solely with respect to the public interest, and thus, the Defendants were found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the owner of the building, including the land within the D Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Zone. (1) Defendant A, in light of the Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon on November 201, 201, the victim E, the representative of the company that entered into the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project with the Seoul Western District Court, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) at the Seoul Western District Court on November 1, 201, by openly distributing to 20 residents related to the said housing redevelopment, thereby damaging the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out the fact that he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 3 years for 20 residents related to the said housing redevelopment.

B. As to the judgment of the court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the present evidence.