The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal recognizes the fact that the defendant created a joint signature under the title "F Representative Removal Signature" with the same content as the facts charged and received signatures from the occupants, but it is based on the fact, and is not unlawful as a legitimate act for the overall interests of the occupants of the apartment, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant, which is unfair, is erroneous as it misleads the facts

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, G attorney-at-law who has accepted the case of this case did not exempt G attorney-at-law from 10 residents in a pro-child relationship with the victim, and the victim did not request G attorney-at-law to exempt the above 10 attorney fees (the original witness F, G's each legal statement, evidence records 68 pages). Thus, the part of the defendant's joint signature stated in the above joint signature of this case "F representative is not recognized as requiring G attorney-at-law to exempt 10 household fees in order to maintain a pro-friendly relationship with the victim."

Therefore, it is clear that the defendant's act impairs the reputation of the victim by pointing out false facts.

In addition, the defendant exempted 10 residents who have a relationship with the victim from other persons.

Even though the victim or the victim was asked G attorney to exempt the above 10 persons from the fees, taking account of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is difficult to view that the defendant performed an adequate and adequate investigation to verify the authenticity of the content, and otherwise, it is not possible to discover objective and reasonable materials to support the authenticity of the content, and in particular, there is no reasonable ground to believe that the defendant did not act.