The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be 5,000,000 won.

Defendant. A fine.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant’s act in relation to defamation is an act of disclosing the balance of the head of the Tong to ensure transparent accounting of the resident. The Defendant’s act is excluded from illegality pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act. 2) There was a circumstance to suspect that the Defendant was embezzled of 30,000,000 public funds. There was no perception that the fact of accusation was false.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is heavy.

2. We examine the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

A. As to the crime of defamation, the Defendant is the resident of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment. The Defendant: (a) from around 14:25 to around 14:27, on April 1, 2014, the summary of the facts charged of defamation is the resident of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment 121-2Ra, 105 Dong 1-2Ra, 105 Dong 1-2Ra, 117 Dong 3-4 Dong 3-Ra; (b) the resident E, Dong representative F, and Dong Vice-Chairperson, each mail of G, the victim H’s H’s account; (c) one copy of the head of the head of the Tong; and (d) one copy of the head of the head of the Tong’s account; and (e) the victim (H) want to drink 300 million won in association; (d) the Defendant prepared a prosecutor’s investigation report containing the statement of the Defendant and the victim, and one copy of the confirmation document written by the Defendant, thereby openly investigating the victim’s reputation by openly using evidence.

First of all, the protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor that the defendant distributed was stated that the defendant tried to drink 300 million won of the union money.It was stated that the victim knew that he embezzled the union money, and the victim stated that misunderstanding was made. However, it is not problematic to keep the union money in the passbook under the personal name of the victim.