In full view of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor as to the part on defamation around September 201 among the facts charged in the instant case, and in particular, M’s testimony, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, was guilty by pointing out false facts with the purport that the FFA operated by the victim was illegally registered.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence and in particular, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor on November 1, 201 as to the defamation portion among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant alleged false facts to the effect that the FFA had four persons, such as I, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, and the Defendant was sufficiently aware that the said facts were false and that it was difficult to deem that it was for the sake of public interest. Accordingly, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor on May 2012 among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant was illegally authorized, permitted, and operated as a private teaching institute operated in the Juvenile Prohibited Area as indicated in the instant facts charged. The Defendant sufficiently recognized that the said facts were false, and as such, it is difficult to deem it to be aimed at promoting the public interest. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the facts charged.