The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the victim C’s defamation “Fho C representative” means that C only recognized the fact that it requested D to repair the glass damaged by his mistake and received the repair without compensation, and it does not mean that C used the status of the representative. In addition, C’s acceptance of the glass granted by D without compensation is a preferential treatment, and it is an abuse of the status of the representative, and thus, it is justified in its content as to the public interest. 2) The expression “act to pursue private interest” with respect to the victim G constitutes a subjective judgment or evaluation of the defendant, and the remainder falls under the true contents, and both of them are excluded from illegality with respect to the public interest of the occupants of apartment buildings.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant could recognize the fact that he/she could defame the victims by pointing out false facts.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in comparison with the evidence examined by the court below, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting

B. The Defendant stated false facts as to the details of the dispute between the occupants of apartment houses, thereby impairing the honor of the victims, and did not receive a letter from the victims.

The defendant's age, character, character, environment, family relationship, and crime, including the above circumstances.