A. Regarding the fact of defamation by publicly alleging false facts, the CCTV images are confirmed only when the victim taken out the envelope in the region of the pharmacy, and it cannot be confirmed at all that the Defendant brought about KRW 1 million in the envelope, and that the Defendant stolen the above KRW 1 million and brought about the idea of the Defendant. However, the Defendant only reported CCTV images, and that the victim brought about KRW 1 million in the victim.

The defendant's statement was a false fact, and there was a perception about the defendant's false fact.

B. Regarding the point of defamation by statement of fact, the defendant stolen the passbook of the pharmacy or the OPT before the victim is detained and stolen money.

The amount brought by the victim is one billion won or more.

The phrase “the intention of defamation” is not necessary for the renewal of a pharmacy’s lease agreement, but is not a content that seriously impairs the victim’s social assessment. As such, the intent of defamation may be recognized against the Defendant.

(c)

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted each of the facts charged is erroneous as erroneous.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that the Defendant brought KRW 1 million to the victim solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, in relation to the defamation of false facts.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the phrase was false or that the defendant was aware that it was false, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, with regard to the point of defamation, the main purpose of the defendant's expression to H, such as this part of the facts charged, is to renew the pharmacy lease contract and to refer to whether the victim was accompanied by the victim in the process.