However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of defamation and defamation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the various circumstances as indicated in the reasoning of the judgment below based on the adopted evidence, the court below held that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is likely to cause the Defendant to speak as indicated in the facts charged in this case or to spread the Defendant’s speech to many, unspecified or unspecified persons.

The charges of this case were acquitted on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in this court's wrong criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be judged as the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do1568, Jul. 28, 2000; 200Do4946, Feb. 9, 2001). Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in detail compared with the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in comparison with the evidence, it is proper to find the facts as stated in the judgment of the court below, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of defamation or defamation, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of conclusion is with merit.