The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have prepared and posted a written public notice of this case.

B. The public notice of January 4, 2013 in the instant case is merely indicated as “S” and the victims’ name was not indicated, and thus, the subject of defamation was not specified.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of fact, the fact that the defendant directly prepared a written public notice on the same facts as the facts stated in the judgment below and posted it on the apartment bulletin board can be sufficiently recognized.

Since the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. In order to establish the crime of defamation as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the act of defamation of a person’s name is not necessarily required to explicitly indicate a false fact. Thus, in a case where it is possible to find out which person is designated by considering the contents of the expression as a whole in light of the surrounding circumstances, it constitutes defamation of the specific person.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 82Do1256 Decided November 9, 1982, 201Do11226 Decided March 27, 2014, etc.). With respect to the instant case, health care units were duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the following circumstances are as follows: (a) the victims of C Apartment filed a lawsuit for the confirmation of the existence of the abandonment of the said representative land against T, who were the chairman of the C Apartment’s council of occupants’ representatives; (b) the victims of C Apartment filed a lawsuit for the confirmation of the existence of the abandonment of the said representative land against T, who were the representative of the C Apartment’s council of occupants’ representatives; and (c) issued a copy of the said decision to the apartment management office on October 19, 2012 upon the court’s provisional disposition suspending the performance of his/her duties; and (d) the subsequent lawsuit for the confirmation of the existence of the abandonment of the said representative land, etc., the victims filed a written public notice stating the Plaintiff on December 27,