The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, a statement made by the Defendant at the representative meeting of occupants on March 17, 2015 on the victim D’s previous convictions (hereinafter “instant statement”) is deemed unlawful as it is for the public interest.

Therefore, the crime of defamation is not established.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that, based on the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination on the following facts: (a) based on the following: (i) the matters, such as the request for replacement of the managing director’s improper performance of duties or the management director’s improper performance of duties, constitute matters pertaining to the interests and interests of all the occupants; (b) the fact of the management director’s previous conviction basically belongs to a private sector, unless it is closely related to the appropriateness of the management director’s performance of duties; and (c) it is difficult to view it as a public concern for the overall interests of all the occupants; and (b) in light of the date and time indicated in the judgment by the representative meeting of the occupants of C Apartment, the process of holding the meeting at the place, and the circumstances leading up to reading the victim’s previous conviction, it is difficult to deem the victim to have raised the risk of defamation by having the victim inform the victim of his criminal record at the representative meeting of the disclosed occupants; and (iii) the victim’s statement that it is inappropriate to have the victim’s reputation damaged upon reading, etc.

2) An appellate court’s determination (A) does not punish a person’s reputation by openly pointing out facts.