The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principles) is that the victim F, who was the chief of the Korean religious order of C religious organization, was in harmony with traffic, unfairly supported the D church from E, and the victim G, who was the chief of the Busan Educational Organization, and the head of the Busan Educational Organization, was in the situation where the victim F, who was the chief of the Busan Educational Organization, had no choice but

The Defendant only attempted to inform the public of such truth for the purpose of public interest.

Judgment

The Defendant asserted in the lower court as the same trial, and the lower court posted a false fact with the intention of slandering the victims when comprehensively taking into account each circumstance in the judgment.

The defendant's assertion was not accepted on the judgment.

In addition to each of the above circumstances, the judgment of the court below is just and the defendant's assertion disputing the above facts is without merit, in full view of the following facts, circumstances, and related legal principles which are duly adopted and examined by the court below.

The prosecutor must actively prove that the statement is false.

In determining whether or not the above burden of proof has been fulfilled, the prosecutor must prove not only the existence of a fact actively, but also the absence of a specific act at a specified period and at a specified place without reasonable doubt. However, it is more easy to prove the absence of a fact that has not been embodied in a specified period and space in light of social norms, while it is difficult to prove the existence of such fact. Thus, such circumstance should be considered in determining whether the prosecutor fulfilled the burden of proof.

Therefore, a person who asserts that there is no suspicion of suspicion against a person who asserts that he/she did not have any suspicion, is aware of such a fact.