Resolution 1 to 3 won of the judgment of conviction (including the portion not guilty among the judgment of the court below of the third instance) and the judgment of 3 won of the judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal [2016 No. 1785]

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the Defendant’s article merely did not constitute defamation against Y merely expressed an expressive act that infringes on another person’s subjective reputation or an expression of critical opinion that may affect its social evaluation, on the basis of the fact that it did not constitute defamation against Y.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant, without any specific effort to verify the authenticity of the materials provided by some members of the AB church, excluded only one of the arguments and the AV participated in the press conference for the public interest purpose to find the existence of the group, and even though the AV participated in the press conference to find out the existence of the group, it is deemed that the act was conducted as part of the act to spread false facts, there was a false perception on the Defendant.

In this regard, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges by misunderstanding the facts, although the defendant has concealed false facts for the purpose of slandering it, and the court below found it not guilty.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing (exemption from punishment) is too unfluent and unfair.

[2016No 1808]

A. Although an article written by the Defendant (misunderstanding of the legal doctrine-guilty part) merely expressed an expression that infringes another person’s subjective reputation or a critical opinion that may affect the social assessment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

B. Prosecution 1’s misunderstanding of facts (Crime A) and defamation against Q. The facts charged in the instant case include the part of “A Q as a foreign professor” and “A Q as a foreign professor.” The facts charged in the instant case include the part of “A Q as a foreign professor,” and the part of “A Q as a foreign professor.”