The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, even though not having died of the f religious organization C, did not constitute a death of the f religious organization C. However, the Defendant, at the university lecture hours, expressed false facts to the effect that G was dead of the f religious organization C, thereby impairing the honor of the victim F religious organization (hereinafter “the instant religious organization”).

According to evidence, the court below found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the ground that G was fully aware of the fact that it was false in light of the Defendant’s attitude of lecture, overall method of expression, etc., and that G was sufficiently aware of the fact that it was false that it was a false fact in light of the fact that it was a false fact, since G received a national tree as a f religious organization’s believers with the F Religious organization’s believers, and it was transferred to a hospital due to the outbreak of cerebrovascular, which was a disease, and died at the hospital.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

First of all, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s remarks made to the effect that he died of G is a false statement solely based on the fact that he/she made a false statement. If so, there is no big difference in the sense that he/she is a kind of Myeon, and there is no significant difference in the sense that he/she is a kind of Myeon, and as such, the expression that he/she died of me and that she was transferred to a hospital immediately after her drinking and died following the next day, it cannot be said that there is a significant difference in the victim’s social value or evaluation or the degree of defamation.

In this case, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was clearly proven beyond reasonable doubt as to whether G has taken a non-state figure before the death.