As to the crime of defamation on March 30, 201, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case is justifiable in its determination and it does not err by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Furthermore, even if the Defendant assumed that he had made the statement identical to this part of the facts charged, the Defendant’s speech is that the executives of the church that was prepared to verify the truth of the lusium between H and Ma as the father’s position of pastors, and the members of the church who were prepared to verify the truth of the lusium between H, were to seek H at the present place and did not indicate the fact. Thus, the Defendant

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do588, May 28, 1985). Therefore, prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

On April 1, 2011, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the grounds as stated in its reasoning on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case is justifiable in its judgment and it does not err by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Furthermore, it is true that the defendant made the same remarks as this part of the facts charged, and that J and K et al. do so.