The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the gist of the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal, the defendant’s act was not complementary to the defendant’s act with respect to the crime of fraud committed by the victim, and there was no reasonableness of the means or method since the defendant’s act was not sufficient to supplement the victim’s act, and the content of the bath also constitutes an insulting speech that may damage the social assessment of the victim’s personal value beyond the degree of claiming the return of the money.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant's act is reasonable to the extent permitted by social norms is erroneous in the legal principles.

2. On January 2012, the Defendant found out that the victim D was in parallel with the victim D’s dong E and Japan in front of the Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Mangsan-si B of the facts charged in the instant case, and that the victim was demanded by the Defendant’s son F along with the Defendant’s son F to promptly repay the money borrowed from F, and that the victim was replaced by the victim. The Defendant made a public insult of the victim by saying, “I would have received from the phone. I would have received from the phone. I would have returned. I would have received from the phone.”

3. As to the judgment of the court below, although the part of the defendant's words "do have been replaced by fraud" can be seen as an insulting speech that may damage the social evaluation of the victim's personal value, the evidence submitted by the defendant (as a result of the indictment, it is acknowledged that the victim's her son F by deceiving the victim's her son F by deceiving him/herself, which is the sum of 1,336,504,970 won, has been prosecuted. Although the judgment of conviction was not pronounced on the above facts charged, the circumstance that the F, his her son's son, can be ratified, and in such a situation, the situation where the defendant's son and her son did not receive a refund of the amount equivalent to 1.3 billion won from the victim can be confirmed, and in addition, the defendant did not receive a telephone even though her