All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to the facts charged No. 1 of the facts charged), Defendant’s remarks at the meetings of the D church around April 21, 2016 shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act on the grounds that: (a) there was a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act according to the agenda and procedure for the agenda and procedure of the D church; (b) there was a reasonable reason to believe that the facts were either true or true; and (c) there was no intention of defamation; and (d) there was no intention of defamation, thereby complying with the public interest.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of defamation on April 7, 2016 erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to acts of political party and defamation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Sentencing (Punishment of the lower court: fine of KRW 3,000,000)

B. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to No. 2 of the facts charged) of the Defendant’s “Is the Defendant’s accusation now.”

In doing so, at the Round, I have shown that the relationship of sexual intercourse between F pastors and complainants (E) at the home of the complainants was visible.

'Is the F Bag and the F Bag, why is why the fact was revealed;

“I have the honor to make sure that it constitutes defamation by pointing out the facts.”

The statement "A" is a statement of specific facts, and there is a criminal intent to defame the defendant.

Although the court below found Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of defamation on October 6, 2016, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court.

In regard to this, the lower court, based on the legal principles and circumstances stated in its reasoning, deemed that (i) the facts stated in paragraph 1 of the facts charged by the Defendant was sexual intercourse or obscenity with F and E.