A. The defendant, as a member of the D church, created and distributed the instant printed matter to correct the inappropriate behaviors of victims as stipulated in the constitution of the D church and the same order, and did not have the intent to impair the honor of victims.

B. The Defendant granted the instant printed materials only to F and G, the president of the said Diplomatic Association, who is the president of the said Diplomatic Association, and the Defendant’s act of delivering the said printed materials to others was justifiable, and thus, it is difficult to recognize the public performance of the crime of defamation.

C. Even if the criminal intent of defamation is recognized against the defendant, and the defendant's above act is judged to be publicly performed, the above act of the defendant is merely for the whole church, and its illegality is dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act or as a legitimate act of a pastor, and thus, should be dismissed in accordance with Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish the crime of defamation as to the assertion that there is no criminal intent for the crime of defamation, it is required to make a statement of specific facts sufficient to undermine the people’s social reputation with intent to defame others as a subjective element. Whether a certain expression is defamation is determined by objective evaluation in accordance with the ordinary social norms of the expression, and the use of value-oriented expressions.

Even if social norms, if it is judged that the social evaluation of a specific person has deteriorated, the crime of defamation is established.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2877, Oct. 28, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following are as follows: ① Defendant’s president has a big red station once every 18 years before a church due to an inappropriate relation as the highest recognition of a church.