The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) alleged by the Defendant is consistent with the truth.

The defendant's statement is recognized as public interest in order to inform the problem of F that is sent to the same representative.

2. Determination

A. On February 2, 2016, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant violated Article 23 of the Management Regulations among the candidates for the above representative of the apartment management office in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, and among the following: (a) the head of the above apartment management office D and the head of the accounting management office in charge; and (b) the fact is that F embezzleds at the time of the above representative of the apartment.

23 The phrase "when embezzlement management expenses, etc. are embezzled," thereby impairing F's honor by openly pointing out false facts.

B. The lower court found that the Defendant had already filed a charge of embezzlement on or around April 2016, but was subject to a disposition that was not suspected of embezzlement against F, and that at the time of the first accusation, the part of the “child membership fee of KRW 1.180,00” that the Defendant had at the time of the first accusation is deemed not to have been included in the contents of the complaint, and that the Defendant embezzled F’s management expenses, etc. at the time of the occurrence of the instant case as of February 2016.

That was in the state of securing data or grounds to the extent that it is reasonable to believe

The defendant's assertion was rejected on the ground that there was no discovery of the circumstances that could be seen, and the defendant was convicted (amounting to five million won).

(c)

1) The facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial are revealed to the prosecutor who bears the burden of proof, whether it is a subjective element or an objective element. Thus, in a case prosecuted for an defamation of reputation by a statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the fact that the person’s social evaluation was depreciated was revealed, and the alleged facts are not only false because they are not consistent with the objective truth, but also false facts are revealed.