The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel (definite and misunderstanding of legal principles) is as follows: (a) H, who operates F Real Estate D Office 106 in Sung-nam-si Office Office (hereinafter “instant Office”) with the victim E, detained the Defendant from September 23, 2014 to 11:50; and (b) H’s act is based on the victim’s intent, and thus, H’s act is against the victim’s will; (c) thus, the part that “E made the Defendant detained and threatened the Defendant on his/her own office by having the business partner on September 23, 2014,” stating that “E threatened the Defendant on September 23, 2014.”

The part that the Defendant stated in the instant notice that “E is in the position of tenant without any authority,” is merely a lessee who is not a sectional owner of the instant officetel, and thus called a management body meeting or expressed legal opinion that does not have the authority to form a management body on its own. Therefore, it does not constitute a “statement of fact,” which is the constituent element of the crime of defamation, and E does not constitute a “statement of fact,” and therefore, it does not constitute a false representation, as

The Defendant’s contents stated in the instant notice are true and solely for the interests of the instant officetel occupants. Therefore, illegality is dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to defamation and Article 310 of the Criminal Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by finding the facts charged in the instant case guilty.

Judgment

The Defendant is a staff member of C Co., Ltd. who is working as the managing director of the instant officetel.

Victims E shall be the instant officetels.