The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was convicted of the Defendant on the grounds of the testimony of F, J, K, and L without prejudice to the reputation of the victim or the insult of the victim in the F, J, K, and L. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds of the testimony of F, J, K, and L without credibility.

As above, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (fine 10 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On March 2017, the summary of this part of the facts charged was determined as to defamation 1) The Defendant: (a) on March 2017, 2017, the Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged by publicly alleging false facts to the victim’s reputation, and thereby impairing the victim’s reputation by a part of the legal testimony of the victim F, despite the fact that the victim E was in in in a bad relationship with the commercial or in an influence with the workplace or was not intended to use the Defendant for the safety level. (b) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the part of the victim F.

3) The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial. The finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not having any reasonable doubt, to the extent that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is doubtfully guilty even if there is no such evidence.

The interest of the defendant is to be determined by the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4737 delivered on February 24, 2006, etc.). (B) In light of the above legal principles, the instant case is under the health care unit, F’s investigation agency, and F’s court court, which were the employees of the Defendant.