2. Determination

A. Considering the difference between the spirit of substantial direct psychological principle and the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is significantly unfair, or in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). (b) The lower court determined that the statement made by the F alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim as stated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the first instance judgment.

(c)

In light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the reasoning of the judgment below by comparing it with records is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake as alleged by the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.