The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of defamation among the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles as to the grounds of appeal, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as follows, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

With regard to Section 1-A of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, a person who makes a statement as stated in the facts charged is not the defendant but the victim E.

The defendant's defect in the victim's statement "I am why the sound here here is distorted."

“On the other hand,” and did not make a statement as described in the facts charged.

In relation to the crime No. 1-B. of the facts stated in the lower judgment, the Defendant only sent a certificate of content to the president of the resident representative council to verify the facts on August 8, 2013. Thus, there is no performance of the crime of defamation, and even around August 22, 2013, the Defendant did not receive advice from the director of the management office and did not distribute the certificate of content.

Criminal facts No. 1-C. as stated in the judgment below.

In relation to paragraph (1), the defendant was not allowed to speak as stated in the facts charged.

However, in order to confirm the facts, the defendant does not use miscellaneous expenses, which are public funds, which should have been returned to the occupants in the enforcement department, for the purpose of confirming the facts.

It is merely called " and did not specify the defendant as a person who uses public funds."

Criminal facts No. 1-D. as stated in the judgment below.

In relation to the claim, since the defendant at the time of assaulting the victim, the victim said that the victim referred to the "nicking" to the defendant at the time of assaulting the victim, such remarks as stated in the facts charged constitute true facts.

The punishment (2.5 million won) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, which was alleged to be erroneous in facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.