The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The expression “self-explication” as indicated in the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s home communications is nothing more than a difference between the truth and the truth or a somewhat exaggerated expression in its detail.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, notwithstanding the fact that the primary purpose of the instant home communications cannot be seen as a statement of true facts, and even if it can be seen as a statement of true facts, is expressed that the primary purpose of the instant home communications is to suppress the Defendant, and is for the normalization of the operation of private teaching institutes, and thus is not for the public interest.

2. The summary of the facts charged is the person who operates the said private teaching institute as the president of the Dental Institute in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

On April 30, 2010, the Defendant was investigated into the suspicion that the Defendant committed an indecent act by force with the victim E, etc. who is a private teaching institute student in the above D Teaching Institute lecture room, but on September 28, 2010, the former District Public Prosecutor’s Office stated on September 28, 2010 that it was suspected of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a minor rape, etc. under the age of 13) due to lack of evidence. On October 26, 2010, the Defendant was subject to a disposition of non-guilty suspicion by the president of D Teaching Institute from the prosecution on September 29, 2010 (Case No. 16879 of the Case No. 16879 of 2010). The Defendant distributed the above 10-day book to the above 10-day book, stating that the student and the parent’s behavior in the private teaching institute are all written.

However, the above case is that the defendant did not have any fact about the victim's chest, but there was a fact that the victim et al. was twice and a shoulder, and that the defendant, the president of the driving school, did not have any intention to commit an indecent act at the level of encouragement and education, and thus he did not dismiss the case. The above case is denied.