The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the summary of the grounds for appeal is in the position of village head cannot be denied. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. At around 14:00 on January 13, 2013, the Defendant, on the facts charged, damaged the reputation of the victims by openly pointing out false facts, stating that “E and F had a sexual intercourse with the Defendant’s wife, who is the same village-friendly victim E and the victim F, who is the next village-friendly village, was aware of the fact that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the Defendant’s private village-friendly wife, but, at around 94, E and F had a sexual intercourse with the Defendant.”

B. The lower court determined: (a) the Defendant made the same remarks as the facts charged only to a person who is the head of a village by telephone that does not grasp the contents of the conversation; (b) H has been frequently responsible for resolving or mediating disputes or disputes arising in the Pyeongtaek Village as an interest Chapter; (c) there is sufficient room to deem that the Defendant made the above remarks to H was due to the Defendant’s inform him of the problems related to G, which is his own interest relationship; and (d) it is difficult to deem that the Defendant would have attempted to spread the above horses because the contents of the horses may damage his relative G’s social evaluation; (d) the relationship with the victims, the position of the horses as this Chapter, and the specific contents of the horses, as well as the impact of the horses on the entire village; and (v) the fact that the Defendant actually did not present the horses to the victim only before the prosecutor to verify whether the victim was the victim H.