The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal as stated in the facts charged is consistent from the investigative agency to the original trial court, and the defendant stated false facts as stated in the facts charged.

It is stated that E may have difficulty in memorying all detailed dialogues at the time of testimony of the court below due to the age of 72 years, and the time when the defendant speaks as stated in the facts charged is the end of year, and since people, including the defendant and E, were gathered for the village closing-end general meeting, such remarks were previously made.

A defendant who is placed in a situation similar to December 2008 has repeatedly stated his/her previous work again.

In light of the circumstances such as high credibility, it is sufficient to prove the facts charged of this case by the statement of E and D, in light of the following: (a) there is a reasonable reason to see that the victim D, together with E and F, made the above remarks by the Defendant; and (b) there is sufficient reason to prove the facts charged of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that there is no proof of crime, is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant had not fabricated the head of the community funds management account book by the victim D at the center of the voice-gun, Chungcheongbuk-gun, on December 2014. However, the Defendant, despite the fact that the victim 3-4 of the 3-4 community members was fested, damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by publicly pointing out the two pages of the community funds management account book before 7-8 years from the complainant’s statement.

B. From the investigation stage, the Defendant denied the instant facts charged that there was no such speech at all at the time, place, etc. stated in the facts charged.

The lower court, on the grounds that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, did not constitute the instant case.