The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal refers to the victim E and there is no entry of the same statement as the facts charged.

(M) In fact, even if the Defendant made the same remarks as that written in the facts charged, the Defendant is required to claim the return of the embezzlement prepared by the President of the Magyoung.

Cheong, the certification of contents was reported, and there was a considerable reason to believe that the victim has embezzled management expenses, and that there was a reasonable reason to believe that the victim was the embezzlement of the victim for the benefit of the whole occupants of the above building. Therefore, the illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act (legal scenario). 2.

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant refers to the victim as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, and "the low person is the person who embezzled management expenses of KRW 30 million. If he/she is aware of why he/she is the speech of the low person, and if he/she believed the speech of the low person, he/she would file a complaint against the crime of breach of trust." Thus, the defendant's argument of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. The act of impairing a person’s reputation by openly pointing out a fact-finding as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles is related to the public interest when objectively viewed the facts alleged in order not to be punished by dismissal of illegality pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, and the actor should not be deemed to have expressed the facts for the public interest. Moreover, there should be reasonable grounds to believe that the alleged facts are true or at least the actor believed to be true, and that there is reasonable grounds to believe

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do88 delivered on April 11, 1997). According to the records, it is difficult to deem that the victim has embezzled management expenses of KRW 30 million, or that there was a good reason to believe that the defendant believed that he was true, and that there was a reasonable reason to believe that the defendant was true, and that the defendant was public.