The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

(M) When considering the place, circumstances, attitudes, and personal relation of the persons concerned, etc. of the Defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant had the intent to impair the honor of the victim at the time of his statement, and the statement is likely to spread to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, and thus, the performance of the statement can also be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged erred by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Judgment

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, was aware of and accepted by the Defendant as to the possibility that E and G may spread the horses from the Defendant to many and unspecified persons.

It is insufficient to recognize that there was a criminal intent of defamation against the defendant, and there is no other evidence to determine that there is no other evidence, not guilty of the charges.

In a case where the public performance, which is the constituent element of the crime of defamation, is acknowledged on the ground of the possibility of spreading, dolusent intent is required as a subjective element of the constituent element of the crime. As such, not only there is awareness of the possibility of spreading the crime, but also there is an internal intent to allow the risk. Whether the actor permitted the possibility of spreading should be determined on the basis of specific circumstances, such as the form of the act externally revealed and the situation of the act, etc., the psychological state from the standpoint of the actor should be ratified.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the court below’s decision is acceptable in light of the above legal principles, and the court below’s decision is consistent with the evidence, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, so Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.