The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the grounds of appeal is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

A. The Defendant presented explanatory materials that support the existence of the timely fact to the Defendant, and thus, cannot be viewed as a statement of false facts.

B. There was no attempt to defame the victims.

(c)

The illegality of the defendant is excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act because the defendant believed that the facts alleged are true and stated for the public interest.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor’s active burden of proof that the publicly announced fact is false, and the mere fact that the publicly announced fact is not proven to be true cannot constitute a crime of defamation by publication of false facts.

In determining whether the above burden of proof has been fulfilled, the prosecutor must prove the absence of a specific act at a specific time and place, as well as the active existence of a certain fact. However, it is more easy for the prosecutor to prove the absence of a specific fact in a specific period and space to prove the existence of a fact. However, it is difficult to prove the absence of a specific fact in light of social norms, while it is difficult to prove the existence of a fact. Therefore, such circumstance should be taken into consideration in determining whether the prosecutor fulfilled the burden of proof. Accordingly, a person who actively asserts that there was no suspicion against a person who asserts that he/she did not have committed a suspicion, bears the burden of presenting prima facie proof, and the prosecutor can prove the existence of a false fact by impeachmenting the credibility of the materials presented.