The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not prepare the instant printed matter, signed the printed matter, and did not instruct the members of the conference or third parties to send the printed matter, and the victim actually occupied the jointly closed room on the F2th floor through L, and thus, the content of the printed matter is true.

B. The content of the instant printed matter by misapprehending the legal doctrine is about the use of the second floor jointly closed room, and for the public interest of the shopping mall, so the Defendant’s preparation and publication of the printed matter is not unlawful.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, there is no fact that the prosecutor, in the trial of the party, “no fact exists any illegal possession of a lawsuit for resting,” and there is no fact that the prosecutor made a false inciting attached on the part of the H.

“Non-existence of an unlawful possession of the action.”

“Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment was filed, and since this Court permitted it and changed the subject of the adjudication, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion that he did not participate in the preparation and distribution of printed materials, the lower court argues that ① E is the chairperson of the commercialization conference of this case from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2015, the Defendant is an executive officer of the commercialization conference of this case from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015, ② E and the Defendant’s signature are written in the printed materials of this case (in the investigation records, page 11). ③ The defense counsel appears to have lost the printed materials of this case (Evidence 3-3 of the evidence submitted by the defense counsel) on the side of the signature affixed by the executive officers of the instant printed materials, and thus, the Defendant arbitrarily forged the printed materials of this case using the paper with the signature affixed by the executive officers, but the prosecutor asserts to the effect that the printed materials of this case were forged.