The judgment of the court below is reversed.

2. The sentence shall be suspended against the defendant;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The fact that the defendant published is not false, but 2) there was no intention to defame the defendant.

3. In addition, even if the facts alleged by the defendant are false, the illegality is excluded because the defendant believed it to be true without recognizing it as false and there are reasonable grounds to believe it.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable because of its excessive sentencing.

2. Determination

A. In cases where the Defendant was indicted for defamation by means of publication under Article 309(2) of the Criminal Act, the fact that the publication was false should be proven by the prosecutor actively. However, proving the absence of a fact that has not been embodied in a certain period and space is difficult in light of social norms, while it is more easy for the prosecutor to assert and prove the existence of the fact. Therefore, when determining whether the prosecutor fulfilled the burden of proof, the person who actively asserts that there was a suspicion against the person who asserts that the fact was not suspected of being suspected of being suspected of having committed such a suspicion bears the burden of presenting a prima facie proof to accept the existence of the fact, and when the presentation of such explanatory material is nonexistent or the credibility of the presented explanatory material is impeachment, the person shall be held liable for publishing the false fact (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7915, Nov. 13, 2008). In this case, the content of the Defendant’s publication in question constitutes a specific material, not the content of the publication in question, but the content of the publication in question and its nature.

In addition, there is a fact that the defendant published the fact that he is harsh to the victims.