The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not make a mistake of fact or misapprehension of the legal principle that the head of the apartment guard team of the instant case impairs the honor of the victims as stated in the facts charged.

Even if the defendant made such a statement, it was said that the head of the security guard who is responsible for apartment security as a member of the resident's or the head of the security guard can confirm whether the security guards are not arbitrarily disposing of the recycled goods. Therefore, there was no criminal intent to impair the honor of the victims, and there was no criminal intent to commit a crime about the public performance and the possibility of spreading.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the sole basis of the witness’s testimony that is not consistent. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on defamation or by misapprehending the legal principles on defamation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of a fine of three million won imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, in particular, G and F written statements prepared by the investigative agency and each of these statements, and each of these statements made by them present at the lower court as witnesses, F was working as security guards of the apartment of this case on behalf of the security guards who were on leave for three days from November 24, 2012 to November 27, 2012, and F visited them to the purport that, while visiting the first place where the head of the guard group is working during the substitute work, the Defendant was consistently stated at the investigative agency and the lower court court that, while the Defendant was making a statement to the effect that he would sell the victims' water after deducting the victims from drinking water. In addition, G’s investigative agency and the lower court’s court’s judgment that “the victim D sells d’s thros and pls with his own vehicle.”