The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, as the representative of the Daegu-gu Enterprise (hereinafter “instant apartment”), resisted against the fraudulent act and construction defects at the time of sale in lots by G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and urged correction thereof. Of G and the instant apartment, the Defendant put up a banner to inform the visitors of the intention to enter into a lease contract with respect to the unsold housing units among the apartment units in this case, and distributed a banner to inform them, and did not impair the credit of G by spreading false facts, or interfere with G’s lease contract duties by force.

The court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the Defendant, B, the buyer of the instant apartment, the Defendant is the representative of the committee for countermeasures against the occupants of the instant apartment, and the managing members of the committee for countermeasures, and the victim G is the company that constructed and sold the instant apartment as a corporation established for the purpose of housing construction project.

Since the occupancy of the apartment in this case around July 2008 by the Defendant and B, there have been disputes over various defect repairs, such as the unfolding of access roads to the apartment, water leakage, poor drainage facilities, noise between floors, etc., and the installation of neighboring sports facilities. On June 2009, G had to bear enormous financial costs due to the fact that the total of 678 households up to 678 households have sold the apartment in lots. As to the unsold apartment, G tried to get out of funds by entering into a lease contract for the unsold apartment.

On June 5, 2009, the Defendant and B manufactured and installed a banner with the members of the Residents' Countermeasures Council from June 5, 2009 to the end of the same month, stating that “It is difficult to possess the apartment of this case, whether it is difficult to observe the lease deposit, and it may not be refunded the lease deposit.”

Accordingly, the defendant and B are members of the tenant countermeasure council.