The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) states that “When the Defendant went to a marriage ceremony of any believers, I (in this case, H before the opening of the name, hereinafter “I”) said “C is a woman of D, f. Doz., a F. Doz.,” and C did not say that “C took place in the name of the slves shop and f. Doz. Doz. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do.”

In the situation where the question about the relationship between C and D has spread, it was asked why C was satisfing with C, so there was no intention of defamation, and there was no possibility that the Defendant’s speech might spread.

Even if the Defendant’s horse is the internal relationship between C and D, it is difficult to view it as a false fact.

The lower judgment erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the misunderstanding of facts or intentional act or performance of defamation.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The Defendant and the victim C and D in the instant facts charged were the believers of the inspection of “F” in Southyang-si, Nam-si, and D merely did not have internal relations with the victim.

On December 22, 2016, at the soup restaurant, the Defendant: (a) around 14-15 Sinyang-si, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, called “C is a woman of D who is the head of the F new Do; (b)” at the mutual infacing coffee shop located in Thai-si, Seoul, the Defendant damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by saying “C is a woman of D who is the head of the F new Do; and (c) C takes place at the place of the slves shop and d. Do. Do. Do.”

B. The lower court’s determination is based on the following circumstances, i.e., evidence, such as witness C, G, I’s statutory statement, Defendant C, G, and J’s protocol of interrogation of the prosecutor’s office against the Defendant, C, G, and J, i.e., testimony.