The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the prosecutor’s evidence submitted by the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principle), not only the defendant injured D’s honor by pointing out false facts as described in paragraph (1) of the facts charged in this case, but also the defendant who made a statement as described in paragraph (2) of the facts charged in this case had the intention to impair D’s honor, and it is difficult to view that the defendant’s statement was for public

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act regarding the argument regarding paragraph (1) of the facts charged, it shall be deemed that the publicly alleged facts are false, and the defendant must be aware that the publicly alleged facts are false at the time of publicly expressing such facts. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal intent.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below's determination that the defendant's statement of witness E, which directly corresponds to the facts charged, is hard to acknowledge credibility, based on the circumstances stated in its holding, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, stated that "Gu office employees stated in the facts charged that "I would call twice a day to the tenant representative A, while filing a civil petition with the Gu office, who is the tenant representative A," is false, it is difficult to view that the defendant's statement in the facts charged was proved without any reasonable doubt that it is false, and it is just to find the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and that there is no other evidence to prove it, and that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the facts alleged by the prosecutor and affected the conclusion of the judgment.