The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the expression of “an unlawful crossing that has been made on the ground of the F director, G director, etc.” is somewhat exaggerationd and not false.

② Since the Defendant made a mistake as true facts and used the expression “in the course of mooring to a court by unlawful election,” there was no false perception.

③ Since the contents stated by the Defendant are true facts and are related to the public interest, illegality is excluded pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

(4) Even if the timely contents are not true, the Defendant believed them as true facts, and there are reasonable grounds to believe them, so illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

⑤ The illegality of Defendant’s act is excluded pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Act, which does not contravene social norms.

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

2. Determination

A. If a number of acts constituting defamation of an ex officio determination is conducted by accessing one time under the single and continuous criminal intent and the legal interest of the damage is the same, each of these acts must be punished by a single comprehensive crime.

The facts of the crime acknowledged by the lower judgment are as follows: (a) the Defendant, on August 16, 2018, damaged the reputation of the victim, who is the head of the association by pointing out false facts with the same contents by posting printed materials to 205 members of the BHousing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association at the post office in Seoul as Seoul as of August 16, 2018; and (b) the legal interests of the Defendant are the same as those of a single and continuous criminal offense;

Nevertheless, the court below held that the act of defamation committed by the defendant is a separate crime and constitutes a substantive concurrent crime, and determined the punishment within the scope of a limited term of punishment for concurrent crimes.