The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the content of text messages sent by a defendant by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is related to the victim C, the crime of defamation against the victim D is not established, and the content itself does not include any content that may undermine the social value of the victim C. The statement is true and the defendant sent text messages to the union president for the benefit of the union members’ right to know, and such act of the defendant is deemed to be dismissed.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 1,500,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the head of the Urban Environment Improvement Project Association, and the victim C and D are the same union members.

피고인은 2017. 3. 22. 경 남양주시 E, F 호 B 도시환경 정비사업조합 사무실에서 컴퓨터를 이용하여 “ 조합 소식!! 조합원님 안녕하세요.

C will assist real estate business entities who operated the dissolution of the partnership, and have his private interest in front of his wife D, and leave his office at the regular meeting of the gold-year-year-old general meeting, thereby hindering normal partnership operations, and the partnership will take such measures as the selection of the contractor has become visible.

By sending the text message “A” to approximately 130 members of the union, the president of the union, thereby impairing the honor of victims by pointing out false facts.

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

3) The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court sent the text message of the Defendant to the victims (the victim.