The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal ① The defendant's strong contents are not false facts, but did not recognize that the defendant was false facts.

(2) A victim F religious organization (hereinafter referred to as “F religious organization”) cannot be deemed as a subject of the legal interest protected by the law of defamation.

③ The expression that G died is not an expression that lowers the social assessment of the victim F Religious Organizations.

④ Even if the Defendant’s act constitutes defamation, it should be deemed unlawful as a justifiable act that is included in the scope of freedom of learning and freedom of religion pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the court of original judgment has erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that found the facts charged of this case guilty.

2. First of all, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to whether the defendant's strong contents as stated in the facts charged in this case are false or false, G is recognized as having died at the Jung-gu Busan, Busan, on February 25, 1985, since the outbreak of cerebrovascular, which was a disease, occurred after eating national trees to an occupation-oriented death with the F Religious Organization believers, and transferred to the hospital. Thus, the defendant's strong intent that "G died if G was dead" as stated in the facts charged in the above facts charged was stated to indicate false facts.

(1) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant was guilty of having died of G, and submitted a recording recording of the contents of the telephone communications between the Defendant and L, M, while such materials are difficult to believe that they are, or are insufficient to gather the fact that the Defendant’s timely contents were false). In addition, the Defendant asserted that he did not have any awareness of false facts because he was aware of the fact that he died of G while searching the Internet, but the Defendant did not have any awareness of such false facts.