All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Defendant (1) did not aim to criticize the victim in mind that the content of the interview with the Defendant is true, and that the victim who has legal or moral problems should not perform his presidential position, and that there was no purpose to inform the public of such fact or to defame the victim.

(2) The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing of the prosecutor (e.g., e., e., e., e., t

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The prosecutor must actively prove that the interview content is true or false, but the prosecutor must prove the existence of the above fact in determining whether or not it is true or not, and if the absence of such fact is about the absence of a specific act at a specific period and at a specific place, the prosecutor who is the active party concerned shall prove it without reasonable doubt. However, it is impossible in social norms to prove the absence of a specific fact in a specific period and space, while it is more easy to prove the existence of the fact, it is difficult to prove the existence of such fact. Therefore, in determining whether the prosecutor fulfilled the burden of proof, the prosecutor must consider such circumstance in determining whether the prosecutor fulfilled the burden of proof. Accordingly, a person who actively asserts that there is no suspicion against the person who bears the burden of presenting materials to prove the existence of such a fact, and can prove that the prosecutor is false by impeachmenting the credibility of the materials presented. In such a case, the mere presentation of materials to present is insufficient to the extent that the prosecutor can prove the falsity at least.