All judgment of the court below shall be 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. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles1) The Defendant did not have the intention of defamation, and the act of posting a notice should be dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act as an act for public interest. 2) The Defendant cutting the electric wires of the electric circuit circuit No. c and removed one water meter. However, it is not the possession of the victim who is the tenant but the owner of the building.

3) The Defendant cutting the electric wires of the electric circuit and removing one water meter from the water meter constitutes not only the act of damage without the intention of damage as part of the B apartment management business, but also the act by a political party or the consent of the victim. The lower court’s sentencing of unfair sentencing (the lower court’s judgment: the fine of KRW 1,00,000, and the fine of KRW 300,000: the fine of KRW 30,000 is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the judgment of the first and the judgment of the second court against the defendant was rendered ex officio, and the defendant filed an appeal against them, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the two appeals cases. Each of the crimes of the first and second judgment against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the first and second court cannot be maintained as they are.

B. However, despite the existence of a ground for ex officio reversal, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. First, the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the crime of defamation, namely, the Defendant served as the president of the B Apartment Management Committee of 67 generation from August 1, 2015, and the charge of embezzlement of management expenses.