All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A stated to the effect that “the victim is suspected of embezzlement of apartment management expenses, and thus, Defendant A would bring an accusation against the victim.” This is merely an opinion or subjective evaluation of the Defendant and cannot be deemed to have committed an intentional act of defamation. Even if Defendant A’s act constitutes a constituent element of defamation, Defendant A did not have any awareness of falsity, and Defendant A’s expression as such is for the public interest of the entire occupants of apartment houses. Therefore, the illegality of the facts charged in the instant case is dismissed. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of defamation, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of defamation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) Defendant B did not err by misapprehending the facts charged, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of defamation, around June 2016, but only asked Defendant B et al. K to have known that Defendant A filed a complaint against the victim as an embezzlement, and did not make any statement like the facts charged in the instant case.

In addition, the above mentioned contents of Defendant B are not false, but illegal as it is for the public interest of all apartment occupants.

In addition, K is the representative of apartment floor and the victim's side, and there is no possibility of spreading the words by Defendant B, so it cannot be viewed that there is a performance.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to defamation and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the defendant's each fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, whether the Defendants made such a statement as stated in the instant facts charged in the lower court’s trial, H in March 2016, the Defendant A 50 million won by the victim.