The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is that the notice of this case is an act committed by the defendant for the purpose of lowering the victim in the course of dispute with the victim for a long time, even if the victim was present at the same representative office of apartment complex, there was no need to publish the victim's minor criminal punishment records. If the notice of this case is for the purpose of legitimate dismissal of the victim's suspicion of corruption, as claimed by the defendant, the notice of this case should have been posted along with objective rebuttal materials. In reality, the notice must indicate that the victim received a summary order of a fine of one million won, which seems to be the main contents of criticism of the victim. Furthermore, the notice of this case was concluded in favor of the defendant in the criminal case raised by the victim. This is without any relation to the appropriateness of the LED Replacement Corporation, and it is sufficient for residents to find the defendant not guilty of the violation of the legal principles as to the public interest of Article 10 of the Criminal Act.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant served as the president of the Goyang-gu council of occupants’ representatives from August 1, 2010 to July 31, 2012, and the victim D (the elected on July 12, 2012) who served as the chairman of the council of occupants’ representatives for the six period of Goyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City C apartment. The victim D (the elected on July 12, 2012) who served as the chairman of the council of occupants’ representatives for the seven period of election of the chairman of the Defendant brought an suspicion of defective construction of the PE replacement work that was in progress at the time of the Defendant’s work.