The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) heard from C’s directors Q (the reason for appeal filed on March 30, 2018, indicated as Z but appears to be written in Q), U, P, etc., that D and Q are arbitrarily selling the religious organization’s property; (b) there are many differences between the passbook and the book; and (c) sent a few new persons the instant text messages on the premise that it would be corrected.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that the Defendant did not have intention to defame, and thereby, convicted the Defendant of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the Defendant.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① On November 20, 2015, the Defendant filed a complaint with Q, U, P, etc. on charges of arbitrarily disposing of Category D, E, and F’s property (the name of the crime was occupational embezzlement, etc.). However, D, E, and F received a decision on February 16, 2017 from the competent district public prosecutor’s office located in Daejeon District public prosecutor’s office to have no suspicion of insufficient evidence.

② As above, the Defendant stated that Q, U, and P, who filed a complaint, sold D’s property to religious organizations at will.

First, there is no evidence to prove it, and even if so, there was no such evidence.

Even if the content is consistent with objective facts, there are no other specific circumstances to believe that the content is consistent with objective facts.

③ Rather, the Defendant and Q, U, and P were suspected of having committed a business embezzlement, etc., and they were investigated by each investigation agency (transaction details).