The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) ① The Defendant only intended to directly deliver the documents “report of counseling center” (hereinafter “the instant documents”) to the head of the Sejong Market, the head of the welfare policy bureau, and the head of the Sejong City Council to report the overall problems of the counseling center (hereinafter “the instant documents”), without any intention to have the documents circulated to many and unspecified persons. While the Defendant delivered the instant documents to K press L reporters, and interviews them, the articles posted by the Ler are described mainly in the direction for the problems and improvement of the counseling center, and the articles posted by the Ler are described mainly in the direction for the improvement of the counseling center, and if you take a knife as well as in the internal knife, they do not entirely contain any content related to the remarks (hereinafter “the instant statements”). However, there is no possibility of transmitting the instant documents to Ler. Therefore, it cannot be acknowledged that the public performance of the instant documents is performed.

(2) In addition, at the meeting room of the welfare center in the Sejong City.

It is true that the victim made the instant speech at the meeting on August 7, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant meeting”).

③ In light of the fact that the document of this case was prepared for the purpose of reporting the problems of counseling centers and improving them, the contents of the statement of this case in the contents of the document of this case are only 3 lines, and that the statement of this case was true, the defendant’s act is not unlawful.

2. Determination

A. Considering the difference between the spirit of substantial direct psychological principle and the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.

The first instance court held that there are special circumstances or the results of the first review and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted not later than the closing of the appellate trial.