The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error, misunderstanding of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing)

A. Although the contents recorded in the printed matter distributed by the Defendant of mistake of facts constitute true facts not false, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts.

B. In light of the legal principles, the content recorded in the printed matter distributed by the Defendant is true, and the distribution of printed matters constitutes solely on the public interest, and thus, illegality is dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two million won by fine) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On July 21, 2016, the Defendant and the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the first trial date.

However, on February 19, 2016, the Defendant received the notification of the receipt of the trial records from this court on February 19, 2016, and submitted the statement of grounds of grounds of grounds of appeal on February 24, 2016, but the appellate court rendered a judgment of a fine of KRW 2 million, which is inappropriate to impose a fine of KRW 2 million on the grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of appeal, is only stated in the purport that “the sentence is unreasonable. Materials related to sentencing shall be received from the Korea Legal Aid Corporation for the subsequent submission of the legal aid system.” There are no errors of facts,

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles can not be a legitimate ground for appeal because they were raised after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal.

1) Whether there was an error of misconception of facts in the lower judgment’s judgment, or whether there was an error of mistake in the facts charged in the instant indictment, as to the victim D, who was the head of the foregoing apartment management office, under the title “prestigious” at the council of occupants’ representatives in Busan-si Office around August 29, 2013, for the victim D, which was the head of the foregoing apartment management office.