The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is not a member of the “E”, and the Defendant merely received a certain content from F, the chairperson of the “E”, and created it in the form of a newsletter upon the request, and did not think that the content would have been distributed as it is. As such, there was no awareness about the possibility of dissemination. As stated in the facts charged in the instant case, if the victim received money from the business operators and promoted the business, then the members would ultimately incur loss, and thus, the Defendant’s above act constitutes a justifiable act.

Nevertheless, the court below found guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 1,500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, “E” is a group of single owners, such as commercial buildings opposing urban environment rearrangement project C, and the Defendant’s leakage operates the “MMMMMMMMMM” L. Since the Defendant’s family members, including the Defendant, jointly invest and purchase it, the Defendant was engaged in activities in “E” due to the interest in the above business, such as exercising the Defendant’s property right. The Defendant received the delivery of materials brought by many members from “E” F, G, etc. around June 201, and the Defendant drafted the “E” newsletter (hereinafter “instant newsletter”), which includes the same content as that indicated in the facts charged, and the Defendant drafted the instant newsletter in debate with G, etc., and prepared it before sending the instant newsletter.