The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's act of the defendant is not for the public interest since he made a statement about G and posted a warning to the public. Thus, the illegality of the defendant's act cannot be excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

2. Summary of the facts charged

A. On September 22, 2015, the Defendant imposed a fine of KRW 5 million on 345,00,000 on the E University Graduates attending E University F in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, for the election of the chairman of the group of the group of five hundred and forty-five students of the group of E University.

“The reputation of G was damaged by openly pointing out a fact.”

B. On March 19, 2016, the Defendant, as the president of the E University Total E University, continued the operation of the E-university conference, including the receipt of a report on the settlement of accounts, and the embezzlement of public funds in the same book, at a place where many people pass through, such as school students and related persons, such as the bulletin board and entrance of E-university in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Nowon-gu, for a total term of office, the Defendant did not hold a general meeting despite the demand of the members of the Dong Council several times. However, even though the Defendant was unable to report the settlement of accounts, it continued the operation of the E-university conference, such as embezzlement of public funds in the same book, there is a legal lawsuit among the years.

In the end, by the legal judgment, the invalidation judgment of the general assembly, suspension of qualification for the president of the same chapter, and the fine for embezzlement of public funds for membership fees in the same letter (the former summary judgment of KRW 5 million, the formal trial of KRW 3 million) has been imposed, but there has been no acknowledgement of such errors, and there has been no other moral act, such as re-appealing.

As a result, we have significantly damaged the spirit of the Doctrine, in which the Doctrine discharged through the school juristic person E educational institute, had the Doctrine of the principal school.

A number of students and several members of E can be deprived of the position of an open director so that the open director could not be deprived of his/her intention to continue to maintain the open director position in the form of time due to the grounds for appeal against the result of the public fund embezzlement.