The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The lower court determined that among the facts charged in the instant case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the part of the facts charged that “the Defendant started water supply construction on October 20, 2012 by seven representatives, including victim D,” “the Defendant started water supply construction,” and that there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant told, as to the part that “the management expenses are KRW 100 to two million per month per household,” the lower court acquitted the Defendant only on the grounds that the Defendant was convicted of defamation on October 20, 2012 as indicated in the judgment of the lower court.

As a result, only the defendant appealed against the guilty portion, the above acquittal portion was judged in the trial together with the remaining conviction portion in the relation of a single crime, but it was exempted from the object of public defense among the parties, so the above acquittal portion of the reasons is not determined again in accordance with the conclusion of innocence in the judgment of the court below and it is not determined again.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On October 20, 2012, the Defendant, at around 19:00 on October 20, 2012, provided that “A and six representative members of D and D began construction works for replacement of water pipes at KRW 600 million or required without the residents’ consent. To protect our property, the Defendant provided that the apartment management office prepared emergency measures at the apartment management office and broadcasted that “The management expenses will become a million won.”

The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. As to defamation on October 21, 2012, the Defendant did not say that “the chairman of the Dong representative embezzled KRW 100,000” was the date and place indicated in the lower judgment, and only the former auditor made such remarks.

The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

3. Determination

A. Defamation of October 20, 2012