The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In order to prevent the victim from operating a senior citizen center autonomously, the Defendant merely prepared documents written in the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below and delivered them to the victim via H. There was no fact that the Defendant distributed the said documents to the members of the senior citizen center.

Even if the defendant distributed documents to the members of the center for senior citizens, the contents written in the documents are true and thus their distribution is justified as it is for the public interest.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. The lower court determined the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of facts. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated: (i) the victim has paid KRW 500,000 to the Senior Citizens Association from April 2005, (ii) there was a dispute with the Defendant, the president of the Senior Citizens Association (hereinafter “the Senior Citizens Association”); (iii) on December 2013, the victim changed the date and details of the annual meeting of the Senior Citizens Association with G, the head of the Baduk department, and changed the details of the award; (iv) the Defendant made a match with the Defendant who expressed his opposing intent; and (iii) the Defendant distributed each document stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower court’s judgment against the victim to the members of the Senior Citizens Association, including H, F, and G, and presented each document to the victim; and (iv) the victim has paid KRW 500,000 to the Senior Citizens Association as a special membership fee upon the retirement of the president around 2005.

D Shells outside of the eye of the D.