The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principle) did not think that the Defendant would not impair the honor of the victim D (hereinafter “victim”), and considered the alleged facts, and made the statement with the public intent for the apartment resident, thereby constituting defamation is not established.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant worked as the 7th chairperson of the Seo-gu Seo-gu Seoul apartment representative from January 1, 2012 to the present day, and the victim is the 6th chairperson of the said C apartment unit from November 24, 2010 to December 30, 201, and the 7th representative of the said apartment unit from January 1, 201 to the present day.

1. On March 29, 2012, the Defendant: (a) posted documents at the coffee shop on the 16:20th of the building of the above apartment; and (b) stated to the effect that “D was doing so; and (c) “D was doing so; and (d) why it was dissatis, it was dissatis,” the instant apartment 7 representative, E, resident F, etc.

However, D did not commit an illegal act.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

2. The defendant has committed the same harm;

5. At around 21:00, around 21:200, at the second G cafeteria near the above apartment, there are 20 female members, including H, around September 201, in which there are 20 female members of the above apartment complex: (a) in October 201, D collected money to the extent of KRW 260-2.7 million without any ground.

'' speaks in common.

However, D did not commit an illegal act.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant rendered a non-prosecution decision in the case on which the victim filed a complaint due to occupational embezzlement, etc., and dismissed the application for a ruling, respectively, and the victim, I, J, K, L, M, and N.