Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. The lower court determined that the statement of the complainant was insufficient to recognize each of the facts charged in this case on the grounds of the following detailed reasons: (a) the credibility of the statement of the complainant is insufficient; and (b) other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the prosecutor, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, there is no other new evidence in the appellate court to support the fact that the additional prosecutor asserts in the grounds for appeal.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

(1) A complainant appears to have continuously conflictd with the defendant.

In addition to the facts charged in the instant case, the complainant filed a complaint against the Defendant’s preparation of an interview with defamation. Examining the case, it is difficult to view that the Defendant merely deemed a reasonable rating as the complainant’s superior position, and that it impairs the reputation of the complainant.

As such, even in the facts charged of this case, it is difficult to deny the defendant's behavior that the complainant had a conflict or to distort the meaning thereof.

② On April 5, 2016, the Defendant sent a e-mail to the complainant who wishes to be assigned with other duties, and the complainant is not under the control of the Party on the following day.