The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) is that the defendant, without going through a legitimate party meeting and the resolution of the separation council, inform the members of the fact that the victim E paid 800 million won retirement honorary treatment to I and carried this case's writing in order to promote the sound development of the D church, and this is for the public interest and there was no purpose to defame the defendant.

In addition, the illegality of the defendant's act is excluded as a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. With respect to the existence of the purpose of slandering a person, the term “purpose of slandering a person” means requiring the intention or purpose of a hazard, and for the public interest and for the subjective intent of an actor, and whether there is a purpose of slandering a person is contrary to one another in the direction of the actor’s subjective intent, and at the same time, the determination should be made in consideration of all the circumstances as to the expression itself, including the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the method of expression, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6036 delivered on December 26, 2003). In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant had the purpose of slandering the victim at the time of publishing the instant text. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

1) The Diplomatic Association of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “Diplomatic Association”) shall be the Diplomatic Association.

It is a church belonging to the L unions belonging to the General Assembly of the Korea Egymnasium.

D guard was comprised of 22 political parties at the time of 2010, consisting of four pastors and 22 pages including the Defendant. However, 13 persons, including the Defendant, on the issue of honorable treatment for forest pastors who are scheduled to retire at the end of 2010, and the issue of hearing of forest pastors, which is scheduled to retire at the end of 2010.