The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

A. As to the defamation listed in the separate list of crimes (hereinafter “crime list”) Nos. 1 of the facts charged in the instant case, the part indicated “the injured party has left away from another religious order church without permission,” or for that reason, it constitutes defamation by publicly alleging false facts.

B. As to defamation listed in No. 2 of the crime sight table 2, the part stating that “I covered politically within the local council by ice procedural defects,” ② the part stating that “I go beyond her match at the psychological execution stage,” and ③ there is a question stating that “I will create a vice-chairperson among the committee for the execution of the general assembly and leave the president to the president and reveal a political intention different from the local council president,” constitutes defamation by publicly alleging false facts.

C. As to the defamation listed in the No. 3 of the crime sight table, the part indicated as “a portion in which one is unable to return to the members of the community,” constitutes defamation by publicly alleging false facts.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. The Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case is a pastor who is in office in the “E branch” located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D.

It was thought that the peace defendant should be qualified to a church and that the same victim F who is not given a call or name should be organized.

For this reason, the Defendant had access to the above Egber G site at the office of the above Egber G site and posted three times as indicated in the list of crimes in attached Form 1, thereby impairing the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts that defame the victim.

B. The lower court’s determination is as follows.