The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) does not include the statement of the facts charged against the victim to G manager H in the same manner as the facts charged.

H is pro rata with a victim, and there is no possibility of dissemination (the possibility of dissemination) (the Defendant asserted as the ground of appeal on January 24, 2017 and on the first trial date of the first trial of the first instance). The lower court determined on February 2, 201, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined and the legal dispute progress between the victim and the defendant, the lower court recognized that the Defendant, as indicated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the lower court, destroyed the reputation by pointing out false facts about the victim, and recognized performance (the possibility of dissemination).

In addition, He further promoted the relationship with the victim, and actually transferred the horses from the defendant to the part of the victim.

Even if the performance of the crime of defamation was recognized, it was determined that the performance is recognized.

According to each of the above evidence, the court below held that ① was a co-representative over the operation of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”)

C Around March 2014, there was a conflict between the joint representative director by filing a complaint against the victim who was another joint representative director on charges of occupational embezzlement, breach of trust, etc. Around March 2014, the Defendant was the executive director of F. The Defendant was the executive director of F.

On November 2014, the injured party suffered water from the management and C continued to operate the factory, and the injured party received money from the injured party.

Around that time, C sent a public notice to transaction companies, including G, stating that “F’s corporate passbook is reserved until the time of separate request, for payment due to internal reasons, such as joint representative director’s legal dispute,” and ③ at the time G, the head of the Tong requesting F’s joint representative director to deposit the payment of the payment of the payment is different from each other, so C and the Defendant demanded to inform the place of payment by mutual agreement.