The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) on September 26, 2010, the Defendant made an interview to the victim E, who is the custodian of C, at I located on the 10th floor of the Bupyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City building C (hereinafter “instant building”); (b) on the other hand, the article published in the Bupyeong-gu newspaper differs from the content of the Defendant’s interview; and (c) on the other hand, the reporter who posted the relevant article in the Seocheon-gu newspaper did not attend the meeting of the Defendant, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts erroneous or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances, i.e., articles in the facts charged, which are duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., articles written by K, a staff member of K, and sent to the media (hereinafter “instant printed articles”); ② K prepared the instant printed articles using documents, etc., in dispute with the victim E, the manager of the instant building; ③ The instant printed articles were mainly prepared and provided by the Defendant based on the materials, which P had been mainly used as reference materials; but, from the investigation agency to the court of the court of the court of the court below, K displayed the completely completed printed articles, and revised part of the Defendant’s request for correction, and the Defendant’s name was included in the Defendant’s name as the reporter of the instant printed articles, and the Defendant stated the contents and contact details of the instant printed articles on the date of permission, as follows.