The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: ① The defendant was presumed to have moved in the early stage of moving into G apartment located in Yangyang-si and received various documents from the occupants and the employees of the management office in order to examine them, and there was no fact to dispatch the letter of this case; ② As long as the beneficiary of the letter of this case works as the risk management committee of the company where the victim works, there was no performance, which is the element of defamation, but the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. However, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated at the court below and the court below's decision as to the above argument, namely, ① the litigation issue between the apartment of this case and the contractor of this case, ② the defendant and the victim have different positions in relation to the candidate issue of the chairman of the council of occupants' representatives, ② the contents of the letter of this case are about the dispute between the occupants of the apartment of this case where the victim resides in Namyang-si, who is unrelated to the business affairs of the E bank, and ③ the outer envelope of the letter of this case is located in the Namyang-si post office. ③ According to the result of fingerprint appraisal at the scene of the crime, 6 fingerprints was discovered and the identity was not revealed, 1 fingerprint other than 4 fingerprints of the above company, ④ the defendant's fingerprints was found in the defendant's fingerprints, ④ the process of detecting his fingerprints was examined in the process of examining the documents submitted by the resident of this case and the management office of the apartment of this case.