The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of all the evidence and circumstances such as the audit results, financial transaction details, the consistent statement of I, and the relationship between the defendant and I conducted by the so-called "safinite reception" (misunderstanding of facts), the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, even though it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant defames the deceased by pointing out false facts.

2. Determination

A. (1) The relevant legal principles (1) The facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial are the prosecutor’s burden of proof, whether it is a subjective element or an objective element. As such, in a case prosecuted for an defamation of reputation by a statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the fact was revealed that the person’s social evaluation was deteriorated, and the alleged facts are not consistent with the objective truth, and the Defendant knew that the alleged facts were false, and thus, the prosecutor must prove all the facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do13718, Sept. 4, 2014). This legal doctrine applies to the crime of defamation of reputation under Article 308 of the Criminal Act.

I would like to say.

Therefore, there is no proof that the alleged facts are true, and thus, the crime of defamation of the deceased cannot be established.

In this regard, in determining whether a prosecutor fulfilled the above burden of proof, the prosecutor must prove the existence of a fact actively, as well as the absence of a specific act at a specified period and at a specified place, if the absence of such fact is involved in the absence of a specific act, the prosecutor must prove it without reasonable doubt. However, it is more easy for a prosecutor to prove the absence of a fact that is not specified in a specified period and space, while it is difficult for him/her to claim and prove the existence of such fact.