The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A, B, C, and D among them shall be reversed.

Defendant

A, B, C, and D are not guilty. Defendant E.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The Defendants’ defamation and interference with their duties was denied in an election of the representative director of occupants (hereinafter “instant election”) conducted on August 16, 2014. Moreover, the Defendants’ intent to inform the residents of the fact is an act solely for the public interest and thus, illegality is dismissed.

2) On February 27, 2015, Defendant E’s interference with the ordinary business of Defendant E was a result of Defendant E’s failure from the conference’s seat to live together, but this cannot be said to constitute the threat of interference with the business, and there was no intention to interfere with the business of Defendant E.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (a fine of one million won, a fine of one million won, a fine of one million won, a fine of 700,000 won, a fine of 1.5 million won, and a fine of 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable for the illegal Defendants in sentencing.

2. Determination

A. Defendant E (1) In the crime of defamation and defamation of prisoners of war, and defamation of reputation by a false statement of false facts, solely with the fact that there is no proof that the alleged facts are true, the crime of defamation by a false statement of false facts cannot be established.

In determining whether the above burden of proof has been fulfilled, the prosecutor must prove the absence of a specific act at a specific time and place, as well as the active existence of a certain fact, without reasonable doubt. However, it is more easy to prove the absence of a specific fact in a specified period and space, while it is difficult to prove the existence of a fact that has not been embodied in the space. Therefore, in determining whether the prosecutor fulfilled the burden of proof, such circumstance should be considered in determining whether the prosecutor fulfilled the burden of proof, and therefore, the person asserts that there was no suspicion.