The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts), it can be acknowledged that the defendant spreads false facts related to the victim's company's credit, thereby damaging the above company's credit.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) in the case of the facts charged as stated in Article 1-1(a) of the lower judgment, part of the content of the documents stated in the facts charged constitutes the Defendant’s opinion or value judgment; (b) cannot be viewed as spreading false facts; and (c) the remainder of the documents presented by the prosecution alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the above content is false; and (d) in that the Defendant’s position to view the victim’s credit would be both damaged and damaged, the lower court knew that the content would be disseminated to an unspecified number of

It is difficult to see that the documents written in the facts charged as stated in Article 1-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are merely those written in the Defendant’s opinion, or the contents of the documents are difficult to see as false facts, and the Defendant was acquitted on the grounds that there is no evidence to

B. We examine the judgment of the court below for the above reasons, and examine the following circumstances revealed by the records of this case, we affirm the finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

1) On February 2015, the victim company leased the above center from Chungcheong City to October 2015 on the condition that the F’s annual rent of approximately KRW 180,000,000 is paid in advance.