Judgment

Inasmuch as the facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial are subject to the prosecutor’s burden of proof, whether it is a subjective requirement or objective requirement, the fact that a person’s social evaluation was revealed in the case prosecuted for a crime of defamation through an information and communications network indicating false facts. The fact that the alleged facts are not only inconsistent with objective truth and are false, but also that the defendant knew that the alleged facts were false should all be proved by the prosecutor (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1421, Jun. 12, 2008; 2007Do5836, Jan. 30, 2009; 2009Do12132, Nov. 25, 2010; 2009Do12132, etc.). In light of the following, the prosecutor’s testimony and evidence that the defendant did not directly state the credibility and credibility of his/her testimony before and after the prosecution of the case is considerably insufficient, and the prosecutor’s testimony and evidence of the case cannot be found otherwise.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime is just, and therefore, this is justified.