The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The article published by the accused of mistake of fact constitutes a legal evaluation or expression of opinion, not a statement of fact, and there was no purpose of slandering against the accused.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. The summary of the facts charged was the resident of B apartment, and the victim C, the representative of the occupant of the said apartment, was not good in the course of resignation while serving as the Dong representative of the said apartment as the resident of B apartment.

Da, which was a resident of the above apartment, applied for a disposition of suspending the performance of duties of the representative of the tenant on account of the violation of the restriction on reappointment against the victim, but the application was dismissed due to the reason that the “not violating the restriction on reappointment” was dismissed.

On the other hand, the Defendant had been aware that D had not violated the provision on restriction on reappointment since before D applied for the suspension of performing his/her duties. At the same time, he/she found D to the Gu office and confirmed whether D violated the provision on restriction on reappointment of the victim, and that D had used the case in progress from November 14, 2014 to October 20 of the same month. Thus, the Defendant was aware that the victim did not violate the provision on restriction on reappointment.

Nevertheless, around October 26, 2015, the Defendant connected the Internet NAV Kaf B to the clinic “F” on the bulletin board of “E” (E), and the Defendant was aware of the fact that the injured party did not violate the restriction on reappointment, and the Defendant was also aware of such fact, with a view to slandering the injured party, the Defendant is hotly subject to audit, such as “the chairman’s restriction on reappointment and the number of service companies,” which is subject to audit and inspection.

“A notice stating the false content.”

Accordingly, the defendant is the victim.