The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding 1) The Defendant did not say at the meeting of the occupant of the instant commercial building around December 2012 that “7 million won out of the rent for commercial buildings in transit of the mobile communications company was the victim.” Even if not, the Defendant actually lent KRW 7 million to the victim around 2008 and transferred KRW 5 million among them from the agricultural bank accounts managed by the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant’s statement is true.

On the other hand, the reason why the Defendant said to the above purport was to eliminate the suspicion of embezzlement of the management expenses of the commercial building for himself, and thus, there was no intention of defamation against the victim.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In order to establish the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts as provided by Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the offender should publicly indicate the fact, and should have been aware that the publicly alleged fact has undermined people's social evaluation, and should have been false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4757, Feb. 25, 2000). If the important part here is consistent with objective facts, even if there is a little difference from truth or somewhat exaggerated expression, it cannot be viewed as a false fact. However, in determining whether there is a false fact, the court below should determine whether there is an important part that is not consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the alleged fact, and there is sufficient awareness that it is false as a subjective element, and it can be duly admitted by taking into account the following evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2137, Apr. 29, 2005).