Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant and the victim’s related Defendant were those who worked as the head of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu Residents’ Self-Governing Council from March 7, 2015, and the victim D worked as the principal of the above apartment from around 2003 to February 2015 as the full-time officer of the Defendant, and the victim was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months at the Incheon District Court on February 11, 2016 on the ground that he/she arbitrarily consumed management expenses, etc. while serving as the principal of the self-government council, and the judgment was finalized on the 19th of the same month

2. Criminal facts, from February 24, 2016 to August 9, 2016, the Defendant, on the road side of the above apartment complex, posted a banner stating “occupational embezzlement head D (201 Dong 203)” (201 Dong 203), 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service work, thereby damaging the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. As to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the crime of this case is to satisfy the citizen's right to know as inevitable measures to inform the above apartment residents of the situation at the time, since the crime of this case is to satisfy the citizen's right to know. Thus, it is alleged to the purport that the crime of this case does not constitute a crime by excluding illegality as an act or a justifiable act. However, considering all the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the process during which the banner of this case was prepared, the period during which the banner was posted, specific contents of the alleged fact, the method and degree of expression, and the degree of mental suffering of the victim caused by the display of the banner, the crime of this case is socially reasonable, such as the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion.

It can be seen as a legitimate act that does not violate social rules, etc.