On the contrary, the court below acquitted Defendant on the charge of defamation. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to defamation, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the grounds for appeal and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant was aware of the outcome of handling the case in which J filed a complaint against D and brought about the indictment against D to the G Research Institute. ② The Defendant sought to seal the above indictment and request the staff in charge of establishing the golf driving range to transfer it to another person, and the Defendant presented the above indictment to the staff in charge of establishing the golf driving range and did not speak about the contents of the indictment. In full view of all, it is difficult to view that the Defendant made a statement on the facts charged in the instant case No. 1 and delivered the indictment to D, such as Paragraph 2, first requested the Defendant to verify the Defendant’s ability and ability to perform construction work, and it appears that the Defendant had a criminal intent of defamation in light of the background leading up to such statement and delivery.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.