The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is "The president who has written the highest price in PT has received a lower score in PT, as well as the circumstances in which it cannot be finally selected because he/she has received an administrative disposition.

The fact that a document was prepared and posted with the content of "," but this was prepared to the effect that "the person who received a lower score in the PT or was subject to an administrative disposition and was unable to make a final selection", and the expression was merely an unexpected misunderstanding, and that there was a fact that the victim was an administrative disposition.

In other words, there was no intention to impair the honor of the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected it and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

On April 11, 2016, the court below issued a document stating the contents of this case to the effect that, in relation to the selection of a child care center, E of the apartment management center (i) around February 1, 2016, the company that presented the highest price can obtain more income of KRW 53 million between two years, despite the fact that it is possible to award a successful bid for the child house of the victim who presented the highest price, and (ii) the defendant directly participated in the selection of a child care center as the tenant representative meeting who is directly responsible for the selection of the child care center, as the chairperson of the tenant representative meeting who is directly responsible for the selection of the child care center.