The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal seems to be without public interest because the victim's past criminal punishment records in the past cannot be notified to the whole occupant of the apartment complex, and although the victim's prior notice is the administrative guidance of the competent authority concerning the expenditure of apartment management expenses, the inducement of this case posted by the defendant is not against the administrative guidance, but against the criticism of the victim, rather than against the public interest, the defendant's act is for criticism rather than for the public interest. However, the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. A. Around October 28, 2013, the summary of the facts charged against the Defendant at the meeting room of the third floor occupant representative of the C apartment management unit of the C apartment complex, on the following occasions: “Around October 28, 2013, the Defendant informed of distorted facts in the C apartment management unit; DC (Nam) was punished in the past several criminal cases due to interference with business, damage to property, injury, etc. in our apartment complex for the past several years; and in multiple civil lawsuits, the Defendant lost all of them. Although the Defendant claimed part of the costs of lawsuit against the damages, it still remains causing damages, such as not yet paid, but not yet paid, and it was at the center of the division of the apartment, who was at the center of the C apartment complex, was a provider of some causes for the administrative guidance in the C apartment management unit of the 2007 to 2008, which was the president of the C apartment complex management unit of the 2007 to 2008,000 won.”