The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the document of November 16, 2018, prepared and distributed by the Defendant, and the document of December 8, 2018, the statement of false facts that “the apartment management fee is imposed at least KRW 60 million,” and that “the construction company attending an on-site briefing session due to the procedure for the public announcement of the stamp construction company was not in excess of eight places,” and the Defendant expressed the opinion that the victimized party is incapable of being the chairperson of the occupants’ representative meeting.

As such, the Defendant, based on false facts, has undermined or infringed the social value or evaluation of the victim, and thus, the Defendant ought to be found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (1,00,000 won in penalty, 1 year in suspended sentence) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine can only be deemed to have pointed out the problems or expressed critical opinions regarding the selection of apartment painting and construction work companies and the imposition of management fees, etc., in which the resident representative conference participated, through the documents submitted by the prosecutor on November 16, 2018 and the documents on December 8, 2018, and determined that it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s assertion of false facts against the victim cannot be deemed to have been made. In so doing, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of defamation by publicly alleging false facts by the documents of November 16, 2018 and the documents of December 8, 2018.

The above judgment of the court below is examined closely by comparing the above judgment with the records, and the following circumstances, i.e., the victim presented the agenda as the chairperson of the representative meeting of apartment occupants.