Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In order to establish the crime of defamation, a statement of fact must be made, and the alleged facts should be made to the extent that the social value or assessment of a specific person might be infringed.

In addition, in order to establish a statement of specific facts sufficient to reduce the social value or evaluation of a specific person, such specific facts are not necessarily required to be specified directly, but at least should such facts be inferred immediately by a specific phrase among the specified contents.

(2) The lower court acquitted the Defendants of all the charges of this case on the ground that it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants stated their opinions rather than explicitly stated facts, in light of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, which are revealed by the records of this case.

The circumstances determined by the lower court are as follows: ① Defendant B’s remarks made to Defendant B, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court (i.e., the content of Defendant B’s remarks made to Defendant B is payment of rent to the victim F, who is the wife E, as a lessee of the building; and the victim F, is not immediately inferred that the victim F, was silent of the internal relationship due to the building rent; ② the content of Defendant A’s remarks made to Defendant B, also, gives the upper part of the building.