The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On March 14, 2014, when the victim E worked as a full-time director of the D Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association, on March 14, 2014, the victim E committed an act of corruption, such as receiving 450,000 won of the introduction fee from the “F” printing company of the said association’s general assembly.

In addition, one victim made it difficult to say that he/she is not interested in the union and is exempted from punishment for money only.

Therefore, the Defendant’s distribution of the documents containing the above contents to the union members does not indicate any false facts about the victim.

B. The Defendant was believed to have circulated a document indicating the victim’s corruption, etc. for the public interest of the members of the said association, and there was considerable reason to believe that such a document was true.

Therefore, the illegality of the above act of the defendant should be avoided.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to whether the Defendant alleged false facts, the Defendant indicated false facts against the victim.

may be appointed by a person.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

1) The Defendant stated that “at the time of being employed as a full-time director, he completed the two-year term of office at a different interest rate,” and the victim worked as a full-time director of the D Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “the instant association”) due to the victim’s irregularities, and was paid an amount equivalent to KRW 450,000 for the introduction fee from the F of the printing company for the books of the general assembly.

The argument is asserted.

However, the victim stated that, from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, the F representativeJ only notified the account number of the union of this case by telephone and did not request theJ to introduce the case. J also appears as witness in the case of defamation of G and H, the auditor of the union of this case, and the Do government District Court of the case of defamation of H, as witness in the case of this case.