The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it was true that the defendant sent 15 professors of D University with electronic mail of the same facts as the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, this is not a false fact, even if it is a false fact in domestic affairs, the defendant believed it as true, there was a substantial reason to believe it as true, and there was no purpose of public performance or defamation.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles that found guilty of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine 1) The fact that the facts published in the relevant statutory defamation are “false” is proven by the prosecutor actively, and the mere fact that there is no proof that the published facts are true cannot be established by the publication of false facts.

However, in determining whether or not the above burden of proof has been fulfilled, a prosecutor who is the active party shall prove the absence of a specific act at a specific period and at a specific place, as well as the active existence of a certain fact. However, it is difficult for a prosecutor to prove the absence of a specific act at a specified period and space, without reasonable doubt. However, it is difficult for a prosecutor to prove the absence of a fact that is not concrete in the specified period and space, while it is difficult for him/her to prove and prove the existence of a fact. Therefore, such circumstance should be considered in determining whether the prosecutor fulfilled the burden of proof. Accordingly, a person who asserts that there was a suspicion against a person who asserts that there was no suspicion is a fact.