The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's statement of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is not a content that damages the victim's reputation with the content that the apartment residents should know, but it is merely a statement of the public interest of the apartment residents, and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty without illegality. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s punishment (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable in that it is too unreasonable for the sentencing.

2. Determination

A. On July 2015, the Defendant was the president of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Council for Representative of Residents of Apartment C, and the victim D as the representative of the Dong, and the Defendant was dismissed from office by the said president and the Dong representative on the ground of a violation of the provision on the restriction on the appointment of the Dong representative prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act around December 20, 2015.

When the victim thought that he was dismissed by filing a complaint against the Defendant’s heavy parking restriction violation with the office of Eunpyeong-gu, the competent office of Eunpyeong-gu, and the victim knew of the fact that he was accused of the fact that he illegally carried out a paid parking lot business (the parking lot provided to the occupants and received parking expenses) that was illegally carried out in the above apartment in the above apartment site to the above office of the Gu, the Defendant held a general meeting of residents of the C Apartment at around 17:00 on February 20, 2016 and filed a complaint with the Gu office for about 80 to 90 on the third floor of the above underground parking lot and filed a complaint with the Gu office for the fee parking business of the outside vehicle in the name of the residents of approximately 80-90, the Defendant did not report the parking lot revenue to the office of tax offices from November 18, 200 to 205.

C apartment buildings after filing a report on their origin.