신용훼손
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In full view of the purport of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles), the defendant's statement that the victim E did not have reduced the distribution expense to the development members, the defendant's statement that the victim would face is not a statement of personal opinion or evaluation, but a deceptive scheme, and the full full view of the defendant's statement, it can be seen that the defendant inflicted damage on the victim's credit by using deceptive scheme on the victim's payment ability or trust in the intent of payment by stating that "the victim is not entitled to return the expenses for the interior of the person who invested because the victim would face the loss," and that "the defendant's statement that "
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The judgment of the court below is just in holding that the defendant cannot be deemed to have damaged the victim's credit by using deceptive means, taking into account the following: (a) the statement to the effect that "the head office site should be seized for the recovery of investment funds, as recognized by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below; (b) the statement to the effect that "the defendant's evaluation or opinion on the punishment situation after the news articles or news reports were published against the victim; and (c) the statement to the effect that "the reduction of the distribution expense is made only to the development members," as it is difficult to regard the treatment of the victim's member shop owners, which is unrelated to the victim's ability to pay or trust in the payment intention; and (d) the judgment of the court below is justified in holding that the defendant cannot be deemed to have damaged the victim's credit by using deceptive means; and (e) there is no
Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.