A. The notice of the purport that misunderstanding of facts LI made a sexual indecent act or sexual assault against female believers (attached Form No. 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8) is not false.

B. In order to inform illegal days occurring inside L, a religious organization, the Defendant prepared the instant notice, and this is for the public interest, and thus, is not unlawful.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fines 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor must prove that in a case prosecuted for a crime of defamation through the information and communications network for the determination of a mistake of fact 1, the fact that a person’s social evaluation was revealed, and that the alleged fact was not consistent with the objective truth and was false, and that the Defendant stated the alleged fact with the awareness that it was false.

However, in determining whether or not the above burden of proof has been fulfilled, a prosecutor who is the active party shall prove not only the existence of a fact actively, but also the absence of a specific act at a specified period and place. However, the prosecutor shall prove it without reasonable doubt. However, proving the absence of a fact that is not specified in a specified period and space is not socially acceptable, but also asserting and proving the existence of such fact.

Therefore, these circumstances should be taken into consideration in determining whether the prosecutor has fulfilled the burden of proof.

Therefore, a person who actively asserts that he/she has no suspicion is subject to suspicion is obliged to present prima facie evidence to accept the existence of such a fact.