2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that: (a) the part of the text message sent by the Defendant cannot be deemed false; (b) the part of the “F without the qualification of partnership executives” cannot be deemed false; and (c) the part of the “F is playing by all union members” cannot be deemed as a statement of fact; and (b) the part of the “F is playing by all union members” cannot be deemed as a statement of fact; and (c) even if the aforementioned part of the text message is interpreted to the effect that “F interferes with the integration or the integrated general meeting of this case to operate partnership executives,” the part of the “for partnership executives” cannot be deemed as a statement of fact; and (d) the part of the “in order to operate partnership executives” cannot be deemed as a statement of specific fact; and (e) the “F oppose the integration or the integrated general meeting of this case” cannot be deemed as a fact likely to infringe the social value or evaluation of the F. In light of the records, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground of the facts charged in this case as stated in its reasoning.

3. Therefore, 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.