The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the fact that the victim of the misunderstanding of facts did not have any fact of escape with the defendant's property, and the defendant stated that "the victim gets money and went away."

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the suspended sentence of KRW 500,000 of a fine) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On August 11, 2013, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on the part of the Defendant: (b) on the part of the Defendant, at the “Iroart” located in U.S. New-dong, U.S., Seocheon-gu, U.S.; (c) referred the victim to “Iroart” at the middle school Dong-dong, U.S.; and (d) thereby damaging the victim’s reputation by publicly alleging false facts; and (b) on the part of the lower court, in determining whether the facts alleged in the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act are false, the lower court determined that “The facts alleged in the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts” are not false if the contents of the alleged facts are different from the truth or they are merely a degree of somewhat exaggerated expressions. However, if

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do12430 Decided March 13, 2014). According to subparagraphs 1 through 4 of the above Article, the victim, while maintaining a marital life with the defendant, borrowed real estate or insurance money as security without going through the defendant, or cancelled the insurance proceeds of several insurance contracts subscribed to, and the victim’s will also be paid to the victim’s will, in ordinary court, the following facts are revealed. In full view of this, the Defendant’s remarks cannot be deemed as false in line with the objective facts.