The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) revealed that the Defendant’s use of the technology of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) by “D” is certain for the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) without any reasonable grounds, to the official document sent to the Korea Electric Information and Technology Agency PLC business Team (hereinafter “instant official document”).

Therefore, the defendant was aware that it was false at the time of expressing the above facts.

The judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the victim F of defamation among the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. The facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial of relevant legal principles are the prosecutor who bears the burden of proof, whether it is a subjective element or an objective element. As such, in a case prosecuted for a crime of defamation of reputation by a statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the prosecutor must prove that the alleged facts do not fit the objective truth, and that the defendant knew that the alleged facts were false, as well as that the alleged facts were false. In such a case, when determining whether the alleged facts are false, the prosecutor must examine the overall purport of the alleged facts. In a case where the material facts are consistent with the objective facts, there is a little difference or somewhat exaggerated expression in the detailed facts.

Even if this cannot be viewed as false facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do13718 decided September 4, 2014, etc.)

B. Considering the following circumstances that were duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court and the appellate court as stated in the first instance judgment, the Defendant’s “F AD technology” is considered as follows.