All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each of the testimony made by J, K, U, T, M, P, and N in the court of original instance claiming a misunderstanding of facts is not reliable. On the other hand, although the testimony made by Q in the court of original instance and each of the above testimony made by Q in the investigation stage by M, P, and N are credibility, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the legal principles as to the crimes committed by Defendants A, B, D, and C, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the intentional act or performance of defamation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the possibility of spreading is sufficiently recognized, in light of the relationship between J, K, and Defendant A, and D (J, K, married couple, A, and D do not wish to have the relationship, or the relationship between the J and the victim (which does not want to have the relationship with the dead money) or the victim (which has no special relationship with the victim) at the time.

2. Determination:

A. A. A summary of the facts charged (1) Defendant A, B, D, and C conspired on March 30, 201, and the fact that Defendant A, B, D, and C damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by openly pointing out false facts, even though the victim I was not in an inappropriate relationship with the above church pastor, although the victim J and K hear from the said church.

(2) On April 2, 2011, Defendant E damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by calling to M who is the head of the above church, although the victim I was not in an inappropriate relationship with the head of the above church, Defendant E called “I is in an inappropriate relationship with the head of the above church.”

(3) Defendant E is not in an improper place in Pyeongtaek-si L on April 2, 2011; and Defendant E is not in an improper relationship with the victim I is not in an inappropriate relationship.