The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be viewed as false facts because there are all facts written in the inducements of this case or there are justifiable grounds to believe that the defendant is true.

Furthermore, the reason why the Defendant distributed the instant printed matter was for the public interest of apartment occupants.

The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Even if the judgment of the court below (the fine of KRW 700,000) is found guilty against the defendant of an unreasonable sentencing, it is unfair that the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the facts charged 1, in order to establish defamation by publicly alleging false facts as provided by Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, a statement of fact should be made, and the fact should be adversely affected people’s social evaluation, and should be false. In a case where the important part in this context is consistent with objective facts, even if there is a little or exaggerated expression that differs from the truth in detail, it cannot be viewed as a false fact. However, in determining whether a false fact is a false fact, it should be determined whether the part that is not consistent with objective facts is an important part by examining the overall purport of the publicly alleged fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do2690, May 9, 2012; 2003Do2137, Apr. 29, 2005). According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the victim’s request for reexamination and dismissal from the head of the Local Labor Relations Commission for Management and Management of Apartment from around 2002 to the Defendant.