The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. A resolution was made to deposit the long-term repair appropriations deposited in the new bank MMF in time deposit at the council of occupants' representatives, stating the summary of the grounds for appeal that was held around July 2012 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"). However, since a resolution was passed to deposit in a bank with a safe and high interest rate without any specific bank, a separate meeting is required as to which bank should be deposited, and the victim voluntarily deposited the long-term repair appropriations in the national bank account without undergoing such meeting.

Therefore, even if the above contents are false facts, the defendant did not recognize that he was false, and this point is the subject of the right to know of apartment residents, and is related to the public interest, so the defendant's act is not unlawful.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., ① there was a debate that the long-term repair appropriations at the time of the apartment house council of occupants’ representatives were overly concentrated on one location in a new bank, and there was a resolution that the amount of KRW 300 million should be converted into the term deposit of another bank. However, the resolution was passed to deposit in a bank with a safe and high interest rate without any specific bank; ② In light of the contents of the resolution at the meeting, the council of occupants’ representatives shall take into account the safety and interest rate, etc. to the victim as the representative of occupants by the resolution at the meeting above.