The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the Defendant’s statement at an investigative agency on September 7, 2009 and G’s statement at the lower court’s court’s court’s court hearing, even though the fact that the Defendant reported a trial guide poster attached outside the court, and that the victim was tried for special robbery and rape, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, on the contrary, by misapprehending the facts, and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. On September 10, 2009, the part concerning defamation and interference with business affairs (1) as to intentional defamation, the letter sent by the Defendant to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration on September 10, 2009 (hereinafter “instant letter”) states that the victim is under detention due to special robbery and rape.

However, on September 7, 2009, at the time when the defendant and a person whose name is the victim was the victim of the trial guidance poster written by the defendant, the victim was in the court (i.e., a non-detained trial) and the defendant could sufficiently confirm the meaning of the "detention" through the attorney-at-law B at the same time. Furthermore, in light of the circumstances where the victim did not confirm it before sending the letter, the intention of defamation is recognized.

(2) Although the instant letter regarding performance is not disclosed pursuant to Article 9 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, if it is later known to another person or company (the officer or company of the Board of Audit and Inspection L, M, etc. of the Republic of Korea), there is the possibility of dissemination, i.e., performance., performance.

(3) As to the risk of interference with business, no interference with the business in question was caused.

Even if a third party has a negative perception about the victim's business, it would be likely to hinder the business if it could have an impact on the future bidding.

(4) As above, even if the risk of defamation is recognized, it is different from this part.