The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the facts charged of this case, defamation.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding person) cannot be deemed to be related to the public interest, and the timely act cannot be deemed to be for the public interest, so this case does not constitute the grounds for excluding illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of

The judgment of the court below, which was prosecuted as a single offense of defamation, applied for changes in the indictment with respect to the concurrent offense of defamation and insult, and since this court permitted and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

The prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to defamation is still subject to the judgment of the appellate court, and this is examined.

Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to defamation

A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a C apartment resident and the victim B is also an apartment resident.

At around 15:58 on September 11, 2018, the Defendant publicly damaged the honor of the victim by publicly stating that “The victim was fluored on the ground that the victim was fluoring tobacco to the resident E in front of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment Ddong, and gave pictures to the resident E, while the police and several apartment residents were scened, the victim was scened, and that “The low human being was fluored with 94 years old tobacco living in Gdong, because he was fluored, why he was fluored, why he was fluored, that he was fluored, and that he was fluoring such fluor.”

B. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the above statement is an expression of true facts and concerns the exercise of police power or concerns the public interest of the occupants of apartments.