The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a civil suit filed against G, who is one’s wife and one’s own member, the Defendant filed an application for fact-finding with the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Community Service Center (hereinafter “instant community service center”). When the trial was delayed after a long time, the said community service center’s answer was made, and the trial was delayed due to the prolonged delay, there was no fact that the Defendant merely sought the above community service center and urged it to faithfully respond to the fact-finding, and there was no statement to the effect that the victim’s reputation was undermined, as stated in the facts charged, and otherwise, the testimony from the Defendant is difficult to believe that there is no credibility.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty on different premise is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Although the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he would impair the victim’s reputation, as long as the employee E of the community service center bears the duty of confidentiality for the content of the civil petition under the law, this does not have any possibility of spreading it.

Nevertheless, on a different premise, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. On October 2010, E, who is an employee of the instant community service center, stated in the court below that “Around October 2010, the Defendant sought the instant community service center and talked about why this response would be delayed,” and that “ B, who was a staff member of the instant community service center, removed the internal copy without the power of attorney by pressure.” At that time, the Defendant stated that “At the time two petitioners were present.”

(No. 63 of the trial record). The above statements of E are acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the original court and the trial court, i.e., the following circumstances: