2. In light of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it is justifiable to have determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not have any evidence to acknowledge the public performance.

① In light of the fact that: (a) the document written by I, J, K, and L contains a description that G and E teach; (b) the Defendant dialogueed with respect to G in E and text messages, and that not only E but also G are in a congested manner, the Defendant appears to be in conflict with G and E in the purport that “I and E are in conflict with each other with each other, with the intention that “E is affirmed by the sender of the so-called text messages,” and “I and E are in conflict with each other, with the intention that I and E are in conflict with each other.”

(2) Even if family G and E are not between private persons, G is the president of the cell phone store, and E is the business employee of the above store. G is the court below's decision that “E is not wanting to leave the business well, and it is difficult to view that there is a possibility that any G which intends to continue to work as a business employee may deliver the Defendant’s statement that impairs the honor of E to many unspecified persons or unspecified.

③ H is the E’s workplace bonus. He stated that the Defendant’s speech was not talked on any other person than E because there is no person who wishes to be in common with E in the court of original instance.

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