The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the victim did not inform the current identification number of the correction device even after receiving the deposit from the defendant in full. Thus, it cannot be said that the defendant made a false statement, and the purpose of writing by the defendant was for the public interest, such as sharing of information among the residents in the same Dong-dong, rather than intending to slander the victim.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s statement was false on the following grounds: (a) with respect to the existence of the fact that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant did not inform the Defendant of the password of the present door correction device even though he did not deposit the entire deposit; (b) the victim’s investigative agency and this court’s statement was specific and consistent; (c) it is clear that the Defendant did not fully pay the balance by no later than 1:00 am, which is the time scheduled to pay the balance; and (d) the Defendant paid all balance to the lessee at around 2:00 am; (c) the Defendant’s side broker did not notify the password from the victim’s perspective; but (d) the Defendant’s statement that he stated that he provided the password in the circumstance that he did not pay the balance in trust and did not pay it; and (e) the Defendant did not know the password for a long time even after the payment of the balance was made.

B. In full view of the lower court’s judgment and the following circumstances, the lower court did not seem to have erred by mistake of facts alleged by the Defendant.

1) At 2 hours after the Defendant arrived at the police, the Defendant stated that there was a fact that the victim knew of the password to the lessor. 2) Of the real estate that the Defendant requested, H, an individual of the real estate, at the investigative agency and the lower court and the trial court, G, the remainder of the lease deposit.