The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding ① The Defendant did not make such remarks as indicated in the facts charged of the instant case, and ② even if so, such remarks were made.

Even if the facts were believed to be true, this is related to the public interest of the occupants, and thus the illegality is excluded pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, but the court below found the guilty.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the determination as to Article 1 of the facts charged of this case among the above allegations (1) 1, the court below's judgment and the court below's judgment can sufficiently recognize the facts stated in paragraph 1 of the facts charged of this case, and there is a mistake of facts in the court below as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① At the time of the second witness examination in the court of the court below, I stated that the defendant made the statement that it is unclear on April 7, 2014 about the time when the defendant made the statement as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged of the instant case at the time of the second witness examination at the court of the court below, but it appears that the defendant made a statement as stated in paragraph (1) of the instant facts charged, around September 2, 2015, about 17 months after the occurrence of the instant case. It appears that the defendant made a statement at the police around July 8, 2014, as of April 2014, when the police made the statement, that the defendant made the statement as described in paragraph (1) of the instant facts charged.

(2) The J consistently made a statement from the investigation stage to the original court’s trial, as described in paragraph (1) of the facts charged in this case.

It is true that the court below made a statement to the effect that there was about 20 participants in the meeting on April 15, 2014 at the court below's court, or signed the list of participants at the time (the 109th page).