The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant believed that the contents of the article as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant article”) were true and there was a considerable reason to believe that the article was published for the public interest, and thus, illegality is dismissed by Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

B. Although the Defendant alleged unfair sentencing and the grounds for appeal on August 11, 2015, based on the summary of the oral argument from August 11, 2015, the Defendant alleged unfair sentencing to the effect that “the sentence of a suspended sentence sentenced to imprisonment heavier than that of the lower court is imposed,” the said assertion is merely an assertion in the said summary of oral argument submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the informant G named in F F FC from the article of this case stated in the investigation process that “A victim H, who was referred to as the former chairperson, had agreed to the above article as a resident and executed money, and received the agreed money as an individual passbook for some residents, not the head of the apartment passbook, but the defendant did not have any fact that the victim received money (Evidence No. 130-131 of the evidence record) and ② The defendant also stated in the investigation process that “the defendant received the agreed money as an individual passbook for some residents and received it from G. Whether it was confirmed that the victim received the agreed money before using the article of this case.” (Evidence No. 131 of the evidence record), and that the statement that part of the money was divided among the residents at the time of construction of the apartment house was not a whole occupant at the time of the investigation process.”