The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. There is no fact that the Defendant entered into a joint entrance from June 27, 2016 to June 30, 2016.

B. Defamation part 1) With respect to the attachment of printed materials, the victim’s consent was obtained.

2) 피고인이 유인물을 부착한 위치는 보도에서 움푹 들어간 곳이기 때문에 명예훼손의 공연성이 인정되지 않는다.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the part of intrusion upon residence, namely, ① the spouseJ of the victim’s spouse who was 601 at the time of the instant case appears in the lower court and stated that “the victim (the victim submitted the written accusation on July 1, 2016)” was “the written accusation,” but it seems clear that it refers to the written accusation submitted by the victim.

The same shall apply to cases where the defendant has come to know after he / she was placed on his/her own.

Even on the day when the defendant was attached to the joint entrance, the defendant divided the 6th and the first class, and the inner door is not opened, so the defendant left the joint entrance and attached the printed object with the printed object.

Despite the fact that the inside of the time did not open the joint door, it is clear that he/she can enjoy the first letter in front of 601.

“The number of times when the Defendant attached printed matter to the co-explosive question is limited to twice the indictment was instituted in the instant case, and the possibility that the J made a statement by mistake on this issue is low; ② the J was unable to fully memory when the Defendant correctly visited the Defendant; but there was a lot of fact that the witness examination on the J was conducted on June 21, 2017 when one year has elapsed since the date of the instant case, and that there was a lot of time for the Defendant to find the victim’s house.

Considering the fact that Jind (Evidence No. 39) was done, it is only considered by the limit of memory, and the credibility of J's statement itself.