All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: The defendants' alleged facts are false facts that are the important part of the facts that are inconsistent with the objective facts, and the purpose of defamation is recognized since they were written to find out competition candidates before the election of the resident representatives' meeting, and thus, the defendants' purpose of defamation is recognized. The defendants' purpose of this paper is not to determine the value of the victim but to indicate false facts, so the judgment of the court below which made a different judgment is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding

B. Sentencing: The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A and D on the guilty part is too uncomfortable.

Defendant

A: Fine of 50,000 won: Suspension of sentence (fine of 300,000 won)

2. Determination

A. We find facts as indicated in the reasoning of the lower court. Then, the lower court found the Defendants as follows: ① The Defendants posted the Defendants based on the following facts: (i) the accusation case against K Victim I; (ii) the Nonparty’s complaint case occurred in the residents’ debate on August 26, 2012; (iii) the victim I’s telephone desire theory against Defendant A; (iv) the victim I’s purchase of a single-story house within the victim I’s development zone (price: 10 million won); and (v) the cost disbursement facts of the resident representatives’ meeting around August 2012; (v) there are somewhat exaggerated expressions; (v) there were objective facts; (v) there was a motive for the Defendants to obtain favorable results from the Defendant I by posting the contents unfavorable to the victim I; (v) however, it is difficult to conclude that there was a purpose of defamation since the Defendants presented opinions on the victim I’s quality, which was composed of the residents’ representatives under poor progress in redevelopment project.