The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is that the Defendant used the loudspeaker to the victim, and used the specific and clear expression that “I am scarfly and decent neighbors are frighten and frighten.” This is bound to be accepted by the general public as the fact that the victim threatens and threatens village residents. In light of the general public, it constitutes a statement of specific facts. Even in the context where the language is used, the Defendant’s act should be deemed an intentional act to realize the reputation of the victim rather than a mere expression of opinion. However, the lower court did not have a specific statement of facts or determined by a simple expression of opinion and sentenced the Defendant not guilty. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination on the prosecutor’s appeal

A. In the first instance trial, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to the facts constituting the offense in the lower court as the primary facts charged (defluence) and added the ancillary facts charged (defluence). The prosecutor allowed the party members to do so.

However, since the prosecutor still has an assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the judgment of the court below as to the facts charged in the surrounding area (Defamation), he/she first examines it.

B. According to the following circumstances which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the primary facts charged under the premise that the defendant injured the victim's reputation by pointing out specific false facts that undermine the victim's social value or evaluation, constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the court below should pronounce innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant shall be erroneous as alleged by the prosecutor.