All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (A) the Defendant did not impair the utility of banner.

(B) Violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) (hereinafter “Defamation”) and defamation (1) did not publish a notice that the Defendant was subject to collective assault against Facebook North Korea on September 30, 2014.

② The article posted by the Defendant was a true fact or there was considerable reason to believe that the Defendant was true, and the Defendant posted an article for the public interest of the occupants of apartment complexes. As such, the Defendant did not have a purpose of slandering the Defendant, or the Defendant’s act is dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (1) mismisunderstanding the facts, or misapprehending the legal principles, ① on September 15, 2014, the Defendant posted a letter stating that “The present representative embezzled the long-term cable reserve fund of KRW 40-5 billion in the apartment house and left for KRW 1 billion in the present one billion,” as a Facebook.

② On September 30, 2014, by the Defendant’s violation of the Information and Communications Network Act (Defamation) around September 30, 2014, this article published the Defendant on September 30, 2014 to the Facebook, with the intent that K did not pay the heating cost as the Dong Representative, was false, and the Defendant was also purposed to slander the Defendant.

③ The fact that the Defendant violated the Information and Communications Network Act (Defamation) on September 8, 2014 and October 8, 2014 is a false fact that the Defendant posted a notice on L on September 2014 as the Facebook and around October 8, 2014.

(2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. (1) According to the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment determined that the Defendant’s act of destroying property has set the banner at four corners.