The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal fully recognizes the falsity of the alleged facts and the purpose of defamation, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby acquitted the Defendant.

2. In light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the nature as an ex post facto trial and that it has the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., in a case where the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of witness, if it does not reach the extent to sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance court as a result of the examination of the appellate court, such circumstance alone does not lead to the conclusion that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the first instance court that lacks proof of crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14516, Apr. 28, 2016). Examining the circumstances described by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable, and the lower court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in its determination that it cannot be readily concluded that the statement of victim or related person was false only

There is no reasonable circumstance to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc.

Furthermore, even in the process of the party deliberation, there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a conviction.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Provided, That it shall be ex officio under Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.