The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts charged of defamation, the Defendant had made a statement like the facts charged of defamation of this case (the other family was divorced only from the other family at the same time, and the said female was the new family at the same time) that the new family requested the Defendant to see that the Defendant committed an indecent act against E was going to the new church, and that the new family did not have any intention to defame E, since the Defendant did not have any intention to defame E.

In addition, the defendant's remarks are made for the public interest purpose of leading the church of this case to the right direction, so the defendant's illegality is excluded by Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, since the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged of defamation, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. Although the Defendant used the vehicle installments in accordance with the resolution of the party meeting, it did not embezzled the facts charged of occupational embezzlement, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged of occupational embezzlement, and there is an error of misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. (1) First, as to the determination of mistake of facts as to defamation, it is just and just that the court below recognized the defendant's intentional act of defamation on the grounds of the relevant part of the judgment, and there is no illegality of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

(2) Next, as to whether the Defendant’s defamation act is dismissed under Article 310 of the Criminal Act, the act of impairing a person’s reputation by openly pointing out facts is true and solely for the public interest.