The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts did not have the intent to insult, and the Defendant’s act is a justifiable act that does not contravene social norms.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below, upon the amendment of the indictment, applied for the amendment of the indictment with the same contents as the criminal facts stated below (the judgment of the court below which is used again). Since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted from the reversal because the object of the trial was changed.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to a trial by this court, and this is examined below.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the revised facts charged can be sufficiently recognized.

The Defendant’s assertion of factual mistake is difficult to accept.

1) In the process of pointing out that apartment management is not transparent as the representative of the Dong, the Defendant was accused of defamation by the representative of the occupants D, but was subject to a disposition not suspected of being suspected.

Nevertheless, D used the following expressions to the effect that the request for dismissal of the Defendant was improper:

It is recognized that the expressions used are detrimental to the social evaluation of the victim and expression of sacrific emotions, such as “autical, mentally weak, dynasical, tangical, etc.”

2) The Defendant repeated from G and received a demand for the deletion of the victim’s insulting gear, such as “Do Do Do Do Do yang,” etc. or the victim’s insulting gear, but rejected the demand.

When the defendant uses the above expressions, it may undermine the victim's external reputation.