The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant presented a written petition to the officers and employees of the commercial building management unit and its members in order to obtain signature in the written petition submitted to the court.

The defendant's act did not have a public performance in the crime of defamation, and there was no intention to commit defamation against the defendant.

In addition, the illegality of the defendant's act is excluded because it does not violate social rules.

In addition, the contents expressed in the petition do not constitute a statement of specific facts in the crime of defamation by disregarding the evaluation or opinion of the victim F's ordinary tendency.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of defamation due to factual misconduct, which is the ancillary charge.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the primary facts charged that the Defendant had damaged the reputation of the victim by pointing out false facts, and convicted the Defendant of the conjunctive facts charged that the Defendant had damaged the reputation of the victim by pointing out the facts.

With respect to this, only the defendant was convicted, and the prosecutor did not appeal the part of innocence as stated in the reasons.

Although the portion of the facts charged in the primary charge, which was judged not guilty, is also subject to the scope of the trial of this court in accordance with the principle of indivisible appeal, the appellate court may not render a judgment of not guilty as to the part not guilty, as it already deviates from the object of attack and defense between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010). Accordingly, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of the primary charge on the grounds of its reasoning.