The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The performance of the crime of defamation should be denied, inasmuch as there is no possibility for the Defendant to spread words made by mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine to one person F who is the principal owner of the building.

Since there was no awareness that the defendant had a possibility of spreading his speech, there was no intention of defamation.

The defendant's horses are important parts of truth.

Even if it is false, the Defendant believed that it is true, and there was considerable reason to believe that it is true, so it does not constitute the elements of the crime of defamation due to the statement of false facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The facts constituting the elements of an offense charged in a criminal trial, whether subjective or objective, are the prosecutor’s burden of proof. As such, in a case prosecuted for an offense of defamation by publicly alleging false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the fact that a person’s social evaluation was revealed was undermined, and that the alleged facts were not consistent with the objective truth, and that the Defendant knew that the alleged facts were false and confirmed, and thus, the prosecutor must prove all of the facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do13718, Sept. 4, 2014). In the crime of defamation, “public performance” refers to the state in which an unspecified or multiple persons can be recognized, and even if the facts were distributed to an individual person, if there is no possibility that such facts might be disseminated to an unspecified or unspecified person, it does not constitute a crime of defamation of a specific person’s public performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do4797, Sept. 8, 2011).