The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are innocent.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) Defendants and defense counsel asserted unreasonable sentencing as the grounds for appeal on the first trial date. However, this is not a legitimate ground for appeal as a subsequent argument after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal.

At the request of the election commission, the Defendants only prepared and submitted a vindication regarding the dismissal of the representative (hereinafter referred to as the “written vindication of each of the instant cases”) and did not have the intention of defamation against the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty is erroneous in matters of law.

Defendant A is the same apartment J, K and Defendant C as the same apartment H, I and Defendant C, and the victim N is the head of the management office of the above apartment. The victim N is the head of the management office of the apartment.

On February 15, 2017, the council of occupants' representatives determined the implementation of the project to replace the apartment water supply pipes, and subsequently promoted the replacement project, such as the residents' briefing session, design and supervision service contract.

As seen above, the Defendants: (a) started to be a special election of the president on May 22, 2017, when the project to replace the apartment water supply center was being promoted; (b) the O was selected as a candidate for the president; and (c) the Defendants were led to the position of opposing the project to replace the water supply center.

On September 19, 2017, the Defendants posted a written vindication that “(the head of the management office) caused serious impacts on the election of the current president by illegal interference and illegal intervention of the president at the time of the special election of the head of the current PP president” on the bulletin board of each Dong representative, in order to slander the victim on the grounds that the victim, who is the head of the management office, is the position of supporting the above replacement project.”

However, there was no illegal involvement of the victim in the special election for the president of the tenant representative on May 22, 2017.

As a result, the Defendants expressed false facts to the victim.