[2] The contents of freedom of religious expression and the standard for determining illegality of defamation by religious criticism

[3] The case holding that a military branch's writing of education books on religion by the Air Force Chief of Staff is not an unlawful act of defamation in relation to a church expressed as a different group in its contents and its creator's relationship with the church expressed as a different group

[4] Whether the appointment of military chaplain officers who believe a specific religion violates the principle of the separation of religion and religion (negative), and in a case where certain soldiers, etc. attacked traditional religion and cause continuous and organized objects by forming prosperity within the military army, etc., the authority and responsibility of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

[5] The case holding that even if the Air Force Chief of Staff ordered the Air Force Headquarters's Religious Superintendent's Office to criticize the doctrine of a specific church and issue books to the above church and its leader's personality rights are infringed, the measures of the Air Force Chief of Staff are not unlawful execution of duties in violation of the principle of separation of religion and religion

[2] Freedom of religion includes freedom of mission to publicize a religion that one's own belief and to identify new believers. Freedom of mission includes freedom to criticize other religions or to recommend religious believerss to open to other religions. In such a case, freedom of religion is subject to protection of freedom of expression at the same time. However, Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea on freedom of religion has the nature of special provisions as to freedom of expression Article 21 (1) of the Constitution on freedom of expression. In the case of press and publication for religious purposes, it is highly guaranteed compared to the general press and publication. In particular, if the purpose of the press and publication is to inform believers belonging to the same religious or religious group of the contents of criticism against other religious or religious religion as well as to inform them of the content of criticism against other religious or religious believers, the right to criticize is guaranteed to the maximum extent possible, and how to protect the reputation and interests of individuals or to adjust the extent of defamation of other people by means of their acts such as infringement of other people's personality rights.

[3] The case holding that, in light of the fact that the military branch's writing of education books on religion under the direction of the Chief of Staff, including the contents of a specific church as an organization, criticizes the doctrine and arguments of the church and the creator, and infringe on personal rights such as honor, it is not an unlawful defamation in relation to the church and its creator, which is described as an organization, in light of the fact that the essential contents of the religious criticism, which should be guaranteed as much as possible, are not only consistent with the truth, but also the purport of causing awareness by providing objective information to the soldiers in order to protect the religion and prevent any confusion in the interest of the soldiers, and thus, it is not an unlawful defamation in relation to the church and its creator.

[4] Under the principle of the separation of religion and religion prescribed by the Constitution, the State can only participate in the world-speed and world life of the people, and the internal and religious life should not be left to self-government, and the State agencies should also be equal to all religions and guarantee the safety and the freedom of religion. On the other hand, the military community of the Republic of Korea has special characteristics that the state's security needs to protect its security as its mission, and in the event of a similar situation, it is necessary to take strict regulations inside the organization in order to achieve this mission, as well as that it must play a role in cultivating the unity of its members and the spirit of its organization. In light of the fact that it is necessary to establish a system of the separation of religion and religion of the Air Force, and that it is not against the principle of the separation of religion and religion of the military forces, and that if any member of the Republic of Korea has established an exclusive military tree that kills a specific religion within the military forces or a system of the separation of military forces, it cannot be deemed that it is against the principle of the division of religion and religion of the military force, which has been widely accepted and its command within the military force.

[5] The case holding that even though the Air Force Chief of Staff ordered the Air Force Headquarters's religious reduction room and issued a book with the contents of criticism and boundary of the doctrine of the specific church, and infringed on the personality rights of the above church and its leaders, the above church has been actively punished for the friends who believe that the friends of the friends were in a way to believe that the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends of the friends

2. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation between the plaintiffs and the defendant Republic of Korea, and the costs incurred by the plaintiffs' appeal against defendant Kim Yong-nam, Cho Dong-hun, and the highest base are all borne by the plaintiffs.

A. Purport of claim

The judgment ordering each of the plaintiffs to pay 50,000,000 won jointly and severally, Defendant Kim Yong-Nam, Godong-hun, and Korea, and 50,000,000 won jointly and severally, respectively, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

B. The purport of the plaintiffs' appeal

(1) As to Defendant Kim Yong-nam, Cho Dong-hun, and the highest base

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of defendant Kim Yong-Nam, Kim Yong-hun, and Cho Dong-hun was revoked, and each of the plaintiffs shall be paid 50,000,000 won jointly and severally, and 50,000,000 won per annum from the day after the last delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

(2) As to Defendant Republic of Korea

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs against the defendant Republic of Korea shall be revoked, and the defendant Republic of Korea shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs the above 50,000,000 won, and the above 50,000,000 won and each of them shall be jointly and severally paid to the defendant Kim Yong-Nam and Ko Dong-hun, respectively, with 20% interest per annum from the day after the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal by Defendant Republic of Korea

It is so decided as per Disposition 1.

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) Gap evidence 1, 3 through 10; (c) evidence 6, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, and 3; and (d) non-party 1’s testimony of the first instance court; and (c) the fact inquiry of the Air Force Headquarters of the first instance court with respect to the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. Status of the parties

(1) The plaintiff 1 church (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff church") is not affiliated with the existing religious order but established as an independent church, and holds the International Juvenile Union (I.YF. International YOF) world as a sponsoring project, and publish the "(title omitted)" through the non-party typesetting company. Since the plaintiff 1 received a wood case from the dick's pen bath around 1971, he operated the plaintiff church as the plaintiff church's member pastor as the plaintiff church.

(2) Defendant Kim Yong-Nam was active duty chaplains of the Korea Air Force Headquarters (the military chaplains, the military chaplains of December 31, 2004, and the military chaplains of December 31, 2004). Defendant Cho Yong-Nam were active duty chaplains of the Korea Air Force Headquarters’s operations headquarters and military chaplain officers of the military chaplains of the Korea Air Force Headquarters’s operations headquarters(the military chaplains of the e.g., the military chaplains of the e., the e., the military chaplains of the e., the military

(b) Details of the distribution of educational books;

(1) On July 21, 2003, the Chief of Staff issued an order to identify the religious believers in the Air Force and to seek countermeasures against the religious believers in the Air Force to the Defendant Kim Yong-Nam, who is military chaplains, by forcing the believers belonging to the Plaintiff church to believe that the Plaintiff church was an existing Doctrine or to conduct a Doctrine in the process of Doctrine.

(2) As a result of the military chaplain’s investigation conducted on July 2003, it was confirmed that there were five officers, three noncommissioned officers, four enlisted men, three civilian employees, and fifteen new members of the Plaintiff church in the Air Force.

(3) Accordingly, on September 30, 2003 and October 30, 2003, the Chaps Office of the Air Force Headquarters issued a total of 75 pages of education books (hereinafter “the book of this case”) stating, “The Chaps”) as part of the preventive measures against Lee Jong-hun in order to implement the direction of the Chief of Staff, the Chaps Office of the Air Force Headquarters issued a total of 75 pages of education books (hereinafter “the book of this case”).

(4) The book of this case contains contents such as “the significance of this group, the impact of this group on the Gun, the harm of the 18 inter-governmental organizations, such as the old nuclear wave, etc., working in the Air Force as of 2003, and the harm and the actual state, and criticism of its doctrine,” and among them, the part related to the Plaintiff church is three pages.

(5) During the period from February 9, 2004 to February 10, 2004, the booker of this case divided a total of 3,000 copies into 60 copies for the Air Force Headquarters, 250 copies for the Air Force Headquarters, 100 copies for the Air Force Headquarters, 200 copies for the Gun Headquarters, 200 copies for the Air Force Headquarters, 200 copies for the 10 Air Force Headquarters, and 100 copies for the first Air Force Headquarters, so that it can be distributed to the commander and the leader and the office of the unit appropriately.

(c) Details of the snow school;

On the other hand, in the situation where the measures and guidelines have been issued against the separated religion from the Air Force Chief of Staff around that time, the defendant met the information from the members of the base church that the new members of the plaintiff church actively punished the existing readers about the school affairs of the plaintiff church, and accordingly, around December 2003, about about 50 members of the base church at the base church within the 20th combat flight team of the Air Force (hereinafter referred to as the "this case church") about the separation of the plaintiff church against the members of the 50 members of the base church.

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs, first, against the plaintiff church in violation of their duty to comply with religious neutrality in performing their duties as state public officials, the plaintiffs issued and distributed the books of this case Kim Yong-nam, Godong decoration, and defendant Kim Jong-chul committed each of the official acts by carrying out the novel of this case. Second, the above defendants issued and distributed the book of this case which is unrelated to the plaintiff church or contains false facts, and infringed on the plaintiffs' reputation rights such as reputation by carrying out the novel of this case. Third, the defendant Republic of Korea did not give preferential treatment or discriminate against a specific religion in accordance with the principle of separation of religion under the Constitution, in violation of this principle, the defendant Republic of Korea issued and distributed the book of this case which identified the plaintiffs as one of the groups belonging to the defendant church through the Air Force, the Chief of Staff, Kim Yong-nam, and Godong decoration, thereby infringing on the plaintiffs' personality rights such as the plaintiff's reputation and other personality rights.

As to this, the Defendants: (a) as to this, the Defendants: (b) are concurrently holding the status of Defendant Kim Yong-nam, Godong, and Cho Jong-hun, who is a military sports company; and (c) the above Defendants, who are in the position of sexual workers, are able to engage in religious activities in accordance with their religious sect or religious sect; and (b) as long as the Defendants are engaged in religious activities in the position of sexual sect or religious sect, they cannot be deemed as unlawful acts; and (c) as long as the publication and explanation of the book of this case are performed by the aforementioned Defendants in the position of sexual sect or religious sect, they cannot be deemed as unlawful acts; and (d) the book of this case and the church of this case contain only the contents of political sect or investigation citing materials of the religious order; and (c) the Air Force Chief does not violate the principle of separation of religion by providing information on harmful effects of religion in the air force within the special power relationship, and thus, it cannot be viewed as unlawful as a violation of the principle of separation of religion and distribution of this case.

3. Judgment by issue

(a) Relationship between military athletes and the State's religious neutrality obligations;

(1) Relevant provisions

(A) According to Article 58(1) and (2) of the Military Service Act, a person who is a soldier in active service and has a bachelor’s degree or higher, and is recognized as qualified by each religious organization to which he belongs, may be transferred by application to the military register of officers in active service in the religious field, and a person who applies for military chaplain candidates from among those who are enrolled at a college of theology, a college of Buddhist, a Buddhist, or a university for the purpose of training sexual officers in order to obtain qualification for a pastor, a Buddhist, or a Buddhist or other person who performs equivalent duties, may be transferred to the military register of military chaplain candidates.

(B) In order to deliberate on matters concerning the selection of religions subject to the enlistment in the military religious field under Article 58(1) of the Military Service Act and the selection, etc. of active duty officers in the military religious field, a committee for the operation and examination of military chaplain officers shall be established under the Ministry of National Defense, and necessary matters concerning the composition and operation thereof shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree (see Article

(C) A committee for the operation and deliberation of military chaplain officers shall deliberate and resolve on matters concerning the selection or cancellation of a religion subject to enrollment in the religious field (see Article 119-2(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act).

(D) The purpose of the Military Service Rule (Presidential Decree No. 17158) is to provide for matters concerning the service of military personnel and other basic matters concerning military life (see Article 1 of the Military Service Rule). Military personnel may participate in religious rites in churches, temples or other places determined by the head of the affiliated military unit (see Article 1 of the Military Service Rule). Military personnel who are not assigned to the military chaplain officers or who do not have a church or temple, etc. may participate in religious rites at a church, temple, private church or temple of a neighboring military unit with permission from the head of the affiliated military unit (see Article 30(1) and (2) of the Military Service Rule). Military personnel shall not engage in any conduct that violates their duties on the grounds of the doctrine of religion or religious life or interfere with the unity of the military (see Article 31 of the Military Service Rule).

(2) Facts recognized

On December 24, 199, the Ministry of National Defense issued a book with the term "military chaplain service guidelines" as an editor and made it available to the commander and staff of each unit. The main contents of the book are as follows:

(a) Military chaplain officers refer to the name of the Order, regardless of rank or other professional positions, such as pastors, believerss, and legal professions, and their status as members of the Order, together with their status as members of the Order, who are dispatched from the Order to the Order to the Order.

(b) A chaplain officer is a commander’s leader to perform his or her duties as a special leader and to perform his or her duties as a chaplain officer, and performs such functions as a leader and leader, religious activities, religious education, counseling and guidance activities, religious administration, liaison, etc.

(C) The main contents of religious religious activities, which are military chaplain officers’ official activities, include religious activities that commemorates soldiers’ religious belief or solid religious activities and activities that heighten soldiers’ spirit or other military forces so that soldiers can well perform national duties for national security.

(D) Religious officers shall give the opportunity for military religious officers to receive religious guidances for their believerss who are newly appointed, and the authority for military chaplain officers to conduct religious rites, lectures, or law at religious events or to conduct religious rites and religious rites is granted from their religious groups.

(e)The religious rites of the military must be carried out in accordance with the principal religious rites. Religious officers have legitimate responsibilities and authority to gather religious rites for soldiers belonging to the military, and religious officers may wear military uniforms as well as military uniforms as determined by religious teams, military uniforms as officers when religious rites are held as sexual officers.

【Reasons for Recognition: Description of Evidence No. 4 of Eul

(3) Determination

If the relevant regulations and facts are as above, military chaplain officers in the army can conduct religious rites or religious rites in accordance with the authority conferred by the religious group with the status as a volunteer officer as well as the status as a sexual officer. Although military chaplain officers hold the status as a state public official, they cannot expect a duty of neutrality in religion that they should not propaganda or criticize a specific religion in performing religious activities being stationed in the status as a state public official even if they hold the status as a state public official, they cannot be expected to have a duty of neutrality in religion, including the right to criticize religious propaganda and other religion. In particular, in order to guide the religious doctrine generally accepted in order to assist the religious life of the state public official, and to point out erroneous parts in the interpretation of the doctrine, thereby preventing religious confusion or protecting the religion of the new official, and therefore, it is difficult to accept the plaintiffs' assertion that there is an unlawful violation of the duty of a state public official in the above case as a public official in accordance with the duty of religious doctrine and the duty of religious discipline.

B. Relationship with religious expressive act

(1) Guarantee of freedom of religious criticism

Article 20 (1) of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall enjoy freedom of religion." The freedom of religion includes the freedom of mission to promote a religion which one's own belief and to identify new believers, and the freedom of mission includes the freedom to criticize other religions or to recommend other believerss of religion. While criticism on religious propaganda and other religions becomes subject to protection of freedom of expression at the same time, Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea on freedom of religion has special provisions on Article 21 (1) of the Constitution on freedom of expression. In this case, in the case of media and publication for religious purposes, it shall be highly guaranteed compared to other media and publication. In particular, if the purpose of the press and publication is a debate on religious doctrine of other religious or religious groups, the freedom of mission includes the freedom of mission to criticize new believers belonging to the same religious group, and the freedom of mission to criticize other people belonging to the same religious group or to recommend religious believerss of religion, it shall be subject to protection of other people's reputation and right to criticism, such as the 96th degree of infringement of rights of religion.

(2) Facts recognized

The following facts may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 12-1 through 9; Eul evidence 1-6; Eul evidence 4-1 through 6; Eul evidence 5-1; Eul evidence 5-2 through 8; Eul evidence 1-2; Eul evidence 2; Eul evidence 1, 2, 3; Eul evidence 5-21, 22, 23; Eul evidence 7-1, 3, 5 through 19; Eul evidence 9-1; Eul evidence 1; Eul evidence 1; Eul evidence 5-21; Eul evidence 5-21, 23; Eul evidence 5 through 19; Eul evidence 1; Eul evidence 1; Eul evidence 1; Eul testimony part of non-party 1.

(A) The supplementary characteristics of Plaintiff church, etc.

① Even though a member mentioned in the previous church is given as a personal gift of a National Assembly member, and it does not necessarily necessarily entail a food perception that clearly memorys the date and time, the plaintiff church is punished for the activities of a National Assembly member by asking questions to other people who have sexual intercourses about the purport that it is difficult to receive a true source, on the premise that the specific date and time are clearly recognized, if it is impossible to accurately express the date and time he/she received, even though he/she is a person who has a sexual intercourses, he/she shall not receive a true source.

② Under the premise that the previous church emphasizes the meaning of the Gu Council members from the cherctal bath, Plaintiff 1 classified Plaintiff 1’s church as one of the Gu Council members on the ground that Plaintiff 1 took part in the sexual cheric cheric cheric cheric cheric cheric cheric cheric cheric cheric cheric cirr

(b) the cause of the problem due to the balking; and

① Nonparty 1, who belongs to the U.S. 38 U.S. military base, was a new religion of the Plaintiff church. At around 2002, Nonparty 1, who was discharged from military service on the Internet bulletin board of the Korea Air Force Headquarters to the effect that Nonparty 1 forced the religion of the Plaintiff church and caused the death and injury of the soldiers, thereby preventing them from spreading at the level of the headquarters of the Korea Air Force Headquarters.

② Nonparty 1 was investigated by the Military Police Team of the Air Force with respect to the above case, and subsequently distributed documents to Nonparty 1, who received education for prevention of removal within the military unit.

③ Around July 2003, the military chaplain’s office of the Air Force Headquarters issued an instruction to identify and report the religious believers’s new military chaplains, and the above military chaplain’s office reported that five soldiers, including Nonparty 1, were the new believers of the Plaintiff church.

④ Nonparty 2, a soldier’s family member, Nonparty 2, who belongs to the 20th M&A (hereinafter “non-party 2”) of the 20th M&A, exercised the right to force the believers of the 20th M&A to go to the Plaintiff church on October 2003, and the Defendant’s highest base was not a proper pastor, but a member of the Plaintiff church was allowed to go to go to the Plaintiff church.

(C) Contents of the book of this case

The book of this case published on December 29, 2003 includes the following contents, describing the plaintiff church as an organization of the two groups, and the plaintiff 1 as an organization of the two groups, as the author of the plaintiff church:

① The 23th page of the book of this case introduced the case where: (a) while referring to the Plaintiff church as the term “Guwon church”, the case cited the case where: (b) the husband, who followed the Guwon church, was absent from the family in the Plaintiff church, threatened the wife with the intention of threatening or assaulting the wife to cause a crime by pointing out the errors of the existing church; and (c) the wife eventually led to divorce by treating the wife, such as forcing the wife to obtain a charge by pointing out the errors of the existing church; and (d) this case cited the case where the 74 to 77 pages of the "Seoul Religious" published on October 194.

② In addition, regarding the Plaintiff church, the 24 pages of the book of this case introduce the origin and guidance of the “Gu Council members” as follows.

“A new interest organization with Nonparty 3, 4, and 5, which is a new interest organization that is going to the previous church, and is in the place of the previous church, and is the signboard that is the ○○ ○○ flive meeting with Nonparty 4, and Plaintiff 1 began to establish a branch church with the signboard that is the ○ flive meeting with Nonparty 4. Plaintiff 1 refers to the name of the religious order as of the end of the 1980s, and the name of the religious order is called the Plaintiff 1 church, and it comes to expansion of power, and spread “the secrets of the crime and repeated”.

③ The 25th page of the book of this case introduces the doctrines characteristics of the plaintiff church as follows.

“Along with the intention to commit the crime and repeated it, it is extremely emphasized. The question of whether a person is a member of the Gu and whether a person is a member of the Gu or not is a member of the Gu, anywhere and at any time?” by means of identifying the Gu, is confused as to whether he/she is a member of the Gu, and is harsh to the believers and the general public. They limit the issue of a member of the Gu only to “a member of the Gu”.

④ Finally, it points out the problems of the plaintiff 1's basic theory as follows.

The term "Gu Council members church" is not only a member of its church, but also a member of its church to look at and interpret all cases as the basis of the Gu Council members and the end of its term, so there is lack of accurate judgment on the real world. In addition, there is a lot of problems such as increasing the elements of extinguishment and conflict to the family or workplace community to which he/she belongs, and impairing its unity."

(D) In writing the book of this case, Defendant High Military Service cited the domestic books published in the regular religious order, such as “Research 1, 2, and 3 of the High Military Service Corps” as the reference book.

(E) Contents of the instant school.

With respect to the criticism of the members or sexual workers of the previous church while conducting missionary activities by the soldiers belonging to the plaintiff church, the main contents of the novels of this case, which were done at the base church within the 20th M&A, around December 2003 at the 20th M&A, are as follows.

In 198, among those of the Kimhae-base in 1998, one of those who had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had

(f) Criminal complaints and the results thereof;

① On April 19, 2004, Nonparty 7, a member of the general assembly of the Plaintiff church, filed a complaint against Defendant Kim Yong-Nam, Godong-hun, and the highest base on the charge of defamation by publication, etc., but withdrawn the complaint against Defendant Kim Yong-Nam.

② On July 26, 2004, the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Air Force Headquarters investigated the non-party 8, who appeared as her husband in the case of the 23th case of the book of this case, as to the non-party 9, who appeared as her wife on November 8, 2004, and they did not dispute the above non-party 8 independently with the non-party 9 as a religious issue, and the non-party 8 stated that the non-party 9 was killed while fighting between the husband and the non-party 9, and that the part of the above case was frequently returned to the plaintiff church while attending the plaintiff church, it was revealed that the important part of the above case was true.

③ On December 21, 2004, the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Air Force Headquarters rendered a decision not to prosecute the Plaintiffs on the grounds that there was no purpose to slander the Plaintiffs against Defendant Godong decoration and the highest base. Nonparty 7 filed an application for adjudication on the disposition not to institute the above disposition. However, the High Court for Armed Forces dismissed the above application for adjudication on January 19, 2006.

(3) Determination

(A) Whether the publication, distribution and legitimacy of the book of this case are lawful

The case holding that, even if the above facts are recognized as follows, since the defendant Kim Yong-Nam and Cho Dong-hun participated in the publication of the book of this case by providing objective information on this religious group to the head of the air force, it was done for the purpose of causing awareness of the harm of this religion and attracting attention to the correct religious life of the soldiers in the military, there was harm such as causing conflicts and impairing harmony in the military by unfairly distributing the book of this case at the time of the issuance of the book of this case, and that the part of the above defendants criticizes the plaintiffs in the book of this case is about the origin and guidance of the old church, and it is generally accepted within the organization of the deceased church, and that the part of the plaintiff church's past characteristics and problems in the religious group of the plaintiff church of this case, which were pointed out as the part of the church of this case, which is an inappropriate part of the church of this case, which is a public opinion of the original church of this case, and thus, it cannot be seen that it is unlawful for the plaintiff church of this case to be published by the new church of this case.

(B) Whether the establishment of the instant school is lawful

The following facts acknowledged in the above facts, namely, the novel of this case, takes a superior and exclusive attitude with the plaintiff church by putting the plaintiff church on a different religious doctrine from the existing church, rather than intending to defame and defame the plaintiff church, which seems to protect the religious life of the soldiers by protecting the doctrine of the previous religion and preventing the believers from causing any confusions in the religious affairs of the believers. Although the defendant church expressed that the highest base of the defendant church belongs to the church of this case through the novel of this case, it merely classified the plaintiff church of this case as one of the religious church of this case and did not designate the plaintiff church of this case as the church of this case, since it is generally used within the church of this case, it is nothing more than to believe that the contents of the opinion of this case are true, or that there is considerable reason to believe that the plaintiff church of this case as the highest base of this case violated the contents of the plaintiff church of this case, the contents of the opinion of this case are relatively unlawful for the plaintiff church of this case to the extent that it did not constitute the new church of this case.

(C) Therefore, it is difficult to accept all of the plaintiffs' arguments on the premise that the publication and distribution of the book of this case and the snow of this case infringed on the plaintiffs' personality rights, such as honor, etc.

C. Whether separation of religion and religion violates the constitutional principles

(1) Principle of separation of politics and religion and peculiarity of military units

Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea prohibits the State from enacting specific laws related to the freedom of religion or treating a specific religious sect in particular, by prescribing the denial of state religion and the separation of religion and politics. Thus, the State is also prohibited from giving preferential treatment or unfairly treating a particular religion in order to protect or suppress a particular religion.

For this reason, according to the principle of the separation of religion and religion prescribed in the Constitution, the State can only participate in the world-speed and world life of the people, and the internal and religious life should not be autonomously entrusted to the government agency, and it should also be the same as all religions and guarantee the safety and religious freedom of religion. On the other hand, the military community under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea has the special characteristics that the military community is in a similar situation with the duty of the State to protect the security of the State as the mission of this year. In order to achieve this mission, the organization requires strict regulations within the organization and the ordinary air force must play a role in cultivating the unity of the members and the spirit of the organization. Considering the fact that it is necessary not only to establish the organization, but also to maintain the peace and order of the members of the military air force, it cannot be deemed that there is an exclusive military tree that kills a specific religion in the military, military chaplain body or military discipline system and that it goes against the principle of the separation of religion and religion of the members of the military force to actively command and supervise the existing military peace and order of religion.

(2) Facts recognized

(A) Even though the term “Guwon” as referred to in the Dominianian is given as a personal gift of a Dominian, and it does not necessarily necessarily entail a critical perception that clearly memorys the date, according to the doctrine of the so-called “Guminion,” which the Plaintiffs Domination, the term “Guwon” under the doctrine of the so-called “Guminion,” under the premise that the specific date and time are clearly recognizable, if it is impossible to accurately express the date and time he/she received “Guwon,” he/she is not a true “Guwon,” even if he/she is a Dominian,” and it continued to cause water by gaining an apprehension that his/her religious form is wrong by approaching the existing Dominian by presenting questions, “I have received Domination? at any time and at any time, I have access to the existing Dominian, and emphasizing his/her educational character and emphasizing his/her centralized activities within the military base.

(B) Meanwhile, according to Gap evidence No. 5-3, defendant Kim Yong-Nam's investigation of the current status of the dual religion in the air force around August 2003, and as to the Air Force Chief of Staff, it may seriously interfere with the morale and inhumanization of the military unit as the soldiers did not accept the existing Doctrine and the Doctrine as follows: (1) as the soldiers did not accept the existing Doctrine and the Doctrine; (2) as it shows the dynamic Doctrine, there is a possibility of formation of a private organization in the military; (3) military officers and pilots may damage military people's images by using promotional materials for the Guctrine, and (4) as it does not recognize one's own crime or the Doctrine, it can be recognized that there are problems such as lack of ethical awareness, lack of work attitude, danger of accidents, etc., such as lack of risk of accidents, etc.

(3) Determination

In this case, according to the above facts, although the Minister of Justice, a state agency under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, issued the book of this case that criticizes the Plaintiff’s doctrine and supervisess the omission of the book, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s personality rights, such as honor, such as the Plaintiff church and the Plaintiff 1, who is the actual leader, through the order of the Chief of Staff, which is a state agency under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, has been actively punished by the Plaintiff’s activities that force the Plaintiff to believe that it is an essential element of religion for the flusium who mainly puts down the existing flusium within the military forces under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, the flusium of the Republic of Korea, and thus, it is difficult to accept that the flussium and the Defendant 1 were in violation of the principle of free military discipline of the existing flusium and the head of the flusium, and thus, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s act was an inevitable link with other religious groups under the control of the air force.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants in this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions is unfair, the appeal against the defendant in the judgment of first instance against the defendant in the Republic of Korea is accepted, and the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance against the defendant in this part is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant in this part is dismissed, and the part against the defendant in this part of the judgment of first instance which is equivalent to the revoked part is just, and the part against the defendant in this part of the judgment of first instance against the defendant in this case against the

Judges Yyeong-Jungngng (Presiding Judge)