Therefore, since the lower court’s judgment of innocence regarding defamation around February 10, 2017 was separated and finalized as it is, the aforementioned part is excluded from the scope of this court’s judgment.

Ultimately, among the lower judgment, only defamation around November 15, 2016 belongs to the scope of this Court’s judgment.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that the defendant has impaired the reputation of the victim as stated in the facts charged. The judgment of the court below erred

3. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged was, around November 15, 2016, damaged the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts by stating that “A resident E was sentenced to a fine of KRW 20 million due to D,” despite the fact that the victim D was sentenced to a fine of KRW 20 million due to the Defendant.”

B. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the grounds that each of the above witnesses’ statements is difficult to believe, and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged, in light of the following circumstances, etc., although the witness D and E’s statements were made at each court and investigative agency as evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged, and the evidence presented by the prosecutor was comprehensively admitted.

① The statements of D are merely statements made by E, etc. that the above people seen or participated in the same work as the facts charged.

(2) E had the investigative agency and the court of original instance make the same remarks as the Defendant stated in the facts charged.