The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the summary of the grounds for appeal Nos. 4 and 5 of the facts charged in this case, the Defendant published a management office and seized documents on the bulletin board, but this was found to have been false in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, even if the Defendant clearly criticizes D by posting an article containing extremely subjective and negative assessment rather than merely indicating D’s act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who was a representative of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment East.

With respect to the defendant's apartment management business, D has inferred this to the apartment residents, and the defendant and the defendant had a good appraisal about D.

On October 19, 201, at around 16:45, the Defendant: (a) connected the Defendant’s house No. 206 and 805 with the “F” to the said apartment car page (E); and (b) it does not know that the reason why the GN caused the GN’s complaint to the effect that the GN made the petition unfolded even though the GN’s complaint was one week; and (c) it does not want to recognize or conceal any harsh result because the GN made the petition, the reason why the GN’s complaint was silent, does not want to recognize or conceal it. Since it is difficult for the person who is responsible to disclose the result properly, the Defendant caused confusion to the 2 complex occupants; (d) increased damage to the occupants by closing the management work; and (e) disclosed the position of the Dogggggggggggggggggggging it through the information and communications network from October 14, 2011 to April 16, 1.

B. The judgment of the court below (1) as to the facts charged in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 of the crime sight list, the phrase “a statement of fact” in this part is deemed as follows