The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to defamation, the Defendant’s statement in each text message of this case that “the victimized person lost his capacity as the president of the Federation,” prior to the court’s decision on the validity of the non-Confidence resolution against the injured person, is merely an expression of opinion on the value judgment or legal assessment that the above non-Confidence resolution is valid, or does not constitute a statement of fact.

B. As to the point of defamation and interference with business, even though the Defendant’s writing on each of the instant text messages constitutes a statement of fact, the Defendant was unable to fully perceive that there was no validity of the said non-Confidence resolution at the time of sending each of the instant text messages, and thus, did not have awareness of the fact that the time was false or that it was a deceptive scheme.

(c)

In addition, the Defendant’s sending of each of the instant text messages on the grounds of illegality rejection was for the public interest of the federation of this case, and the Defendant believed that the time limit was true and there was a reasonable ground to believe that such time limit was true, and thus, illegality is dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

In addition, since the defendant's act constitutes an act due to the work under Article 20 of the Criminal Code, illegality is excluded as a legitimate act.

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who served as the vice president of C, an incorporated association, and the victim D is the chairman of the said federation.

(1) The Defendant’s defamation and fact is a resolution of the victim’s non-Confidence resolution on December 30, 2014, which had not gone through a legitimate cause of non-Confidence and the resolution procedure, and thus lost the victim’s standing as the president of the said federation. However, the Defendant used his/her mobile phone to 120 members of the said federation, including E, around December 31, 2014, and D members were resolved at the special meeting, pursuant to Rule 25 of the Association.