The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is very specific that the Defendant’s explanatory materials consistent with the above content were all newspaper articles F on June 6, 2013 (hereinafter “F newspaper articles”); the source in which the Defendant believed that the content of the instant news report is true is also the same newspaper articles; however, if the above newspaper articles are read, it can be known that the Defendant is not the same person as the perpetrator of sexual indecent act in the content of the article and the victim; it was time and physical impossible to confirm whether the content of the news report materials was true; in light of the above, the Defendant’s willful negligence is acknowledged.

Furthermore, the privilege of a member of the National Assembly can be established under the premise that the defendant reported only the fact to the member of the National Assembly C without any falsity. Since the defendant stated false facts to C, it cannot be the object of the privilege.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no proof of crime, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Since the facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial are subject to the prosecutor’s burden of proof, whether it is a subjective element or an objective element, the prosecutor must prove that the facts have been revealed to fall the social evaluation of a person in the case prosecuted for defamation by a false statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, and that the alleged facts have not been objectively consistent with the truth, and that the Defendant knowingly known that the alleged facts were false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do13718, Sept. 4, 2014). Furthermore, the perpetrator must prove that the alleged facts were publicly known (see,