Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts as to the guilty portion among defamation around March 3, 2016) does not have a public performance in the delivery of printed materials (Evidence No. 18 pages of evidence No. 18; hereinafter “the instant printed materials”) recorded in the facts charged.

The instant printed matter was delivered to two persons, such as H of the incumbent leader and P of the former leader, at the Defendant’s house, and H returned the instant printed matter to the Defendant on the same spot. As such, only one P is granted, and P did not have time to immediately submit it to the management office around March 3, 2016, which received the instant printed matter.

Among the 76 households, 104, 104, 12Ra, 76 households, the chairperson of the tenant representative meeting, the purpose of obtaining consent from 10 residents, and thus, it is not recognized that there is no possibility of dissemination.

The defendant had no intention to commit defamation.

In order to obtain consent necessary for the submission of a request for dismissal of the president of the occupant representative conference to victims E, not to blick or slander the victims, the Defendant delivered the instant inducement to two former and incumbent heads of Bans.

There was no intention to spread the instant printed matter.

Since the Defendant did not post the instant printed matter as written public notice and did not distribute it to the residents, there was no intention to disseminate the instant printed matter.

Defendant’s act of distributing printed materials of this case must be dismissed from illegality.

The contents of the instant printed matter were most true, or there was a justifiable reason to believe that the Defendant was true, and for the public interest of apartment residents.

In relation to paragraph 1, the execution of the long-term repair allowance was actually illegal by the Dongjak-gu Office for the illegal execution of the long-term repair allowance by issuing a corrective order against the illegal execution of the long-term repair allowance.

In relation to paragraph 2, management expenses are large.