The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles ① The Defendant’s oral statement is not false, but true.

② Even if the contents were false, the Defendant believed that R’s statement was true in light of other circumstances, and there was a considerable reason to believe that such statement was reasonable, and the content thereof also is justified as it is for the public interest of the entire Buddhist believers including C.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

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

The court below decided not more than 4 pages of the judgment; the contents of each statement of E, which is identified as having internal relations with the victim and the victim; and the defendant has internal relations with the victim.

All the grounds for the belief that the victim was an opportunity to believe are difficult to recognize the fact that the victim is in a relationship with E or other loans in full view of the fact that the source is unknown or that it is excessive based on the abstract facts that have not been verified. Moreover, there are reasonable grounds for the defendant to believe that it is true.

On the ground that it is difficult to see this case’s facts charged, it was convicted.

2) In order for an act that defames a person by openly pointing out a fact in the context of the applicable legal doctrine to be illegal, the alleged fact is related to the public interest when objectively viewed, and the actor should also indicate the fact for the public interest. In addition, the alleged fact was true or at least the actor believed to be true.