All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the facts constituting a crime of Article 1-A-2 of the judgment of the court below, there is no difference in the fact that Defendant B mentioned the word “unexplic” at the time. (b) In light of the above Defendants’ purpose, which tried to resolve a sudden situation that occurred within the church, the possibility of spreading and performing the acts of the above Defendants cannot be said to exist, and there was no intention in the deliberation to allow it, and there was no intention to commit defamation.

C) The contents of Defendant A and B’s remarks are not “false facts,” but for “public interest,” and the act of the said Defendants is dismissed from illegality. Even if the contents of Defendant A and B’s remarks were false, the said Defendants were involved in the victim’s chest at the time of their remarks.

Since there was a reasonable ground to believe that E and the victim believe that they were in a true relationship with impergies and that there was a good reason to believe that they were true facts, the above Defendants’ act is dismissed from illegality.

(E) Defendant B did not commit an assault to the victim out of a pasture. Even if there were such facts, this constitutes a passive defensive act to prevent the victim’s abusive or defamation against the above Defendant, and thus, constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act. F) Defendant C did not say that “the crime of adultery” as stated in the facts charged is “Frara.”

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 1.5 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 2.5 million, Defendant C: a fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable. B. The prosecutor (Defendant B), mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty part of the lower judgment) are the truth that Defendant B stated.