The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant in the facts charged in this case is a person who served in C Company.

At around 09:00 on March 7, 201, the Defendant, at the location of insurance solicitors, such as E in Gangnam-gu Seoul, there is no time to see that: (a) the Defendant: (b) around 9:30 minutes of verbal sexual harassment; (c) the head of a branch office in the C company; (d) the head of a branch office in the FC personal interview; (c) the head of the branch office in the branch office in the branch office in the office room; (d) the head of the branch office in his hand scambling the scam of the stude; and (e) the head of the office in his hand scambling the scambling, scambling the scambling, and play in a very enjoying string (referring to the scambling of the scambling; (e) the Defendant’s refusal to do so; and (e) the Defendant prepared a scambling of sexual harassment before scambling.

In fact, however, the defendant was at issue with the other branch of the C company and F, who was dissatisfied with the arbitration but was dissatisfied with the arbitration, and the civil litigation was conducted while the respondent was dissatisfied with the arbitration, the defendant prepared the above written petition and should make it out from the complainant.

There was no such words in relation to the smelling or smelling of flasing.

Nevertheless, the Defendant distributed the above printed matter to insurance solicitors, etc., thereby impairing the reputation of the complainant by openly pointing out false facts.

The lower court determined that the key issue of the instant case was “ around 09:30 on September 3, 2010, at the branch office located in the C company, the complainants should enter the Defendant’s dubate.

The facts charged are recorded in relation to or smelling down water.