All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Defendant A: (a) the crime committed on May 29, 2015 and June 15, 2015, committed by Defendant A was merely an expression of opinion, and it is difficult to view it as a factual expression; and (b) there was an intention to defame defamation.

shall not be deemed to exist.

② Inasmuch as the contents of each of the facts charged in the instant case were believed to be true facts without recognizing that they were false facts, Defendant A’s act constitutes for the public interest, and thus, illegality is dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

2) Defendant B and C believed the content of each of the facts charged in the instant case to be true facts without recognizing that the content of each of the facts charged was false, and Defendant B and C’s act constitutes for the public interest, and thus, illegality is dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

B. Each sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 1.5 million, Defendant B, and C: each fine of KRW 1 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court’s determination is sufficiently convicted of the instant facts charged in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court.

The decision was determined.

① There was a conflict between the Defendants and the victim due to the distribution of printed materials about the Defendants’ suspicions.

② In response to the victim’s act of distributing printed materials, the Defendants distributed printed materials that contain the content that the victimized person committed an corruption in the course of purchasing the site of apartment parking lots or constructing the heat joint power plant (which did not include any accusation against his or her irregularities), and it is reasonable to assess that the above content is false as it is not based on objective facts ( Defendant A and B did not have objective and specific evidence proving the victim’s corruption, etc. at the time of investigation by the investigative agency).