Therefore, since the judgment of conviction against the defendant was separated and confirmed as it is, it is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the acquittal part of the judgment

2. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts as to the acquittal portion) as stated in this part of the facts charged, E serves as an employee of the management office of the apartment of this case, and the place where the crime of this case was committed is the management office of the apartment of this case, and the defendant was aware that E was in the management office of the apartment of this case, and thus, E was likely to spread the said words to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, and there was an intention to spread them, and the defendant was subject to a disposition that there was no suspicion against the victim in the case where he filed a complaint against the victim for occupational breach of trust. Therefore, the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant even if the defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged against the defendant.

3. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment, based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor in light of the following circumstances, found that there was a statement of false facts about performance performance at the time of the instant case

It cannot be determined otherwise, and it is found not guilty of this part of the facts charged, considering that there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

1) Performance refers to a state in which many, unspecified persons can recognize it, which is the element of the crime of defamation of honor, and one person individually.