The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that the defendant has infringed the victim's reputation by openly pointing out false facts.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes to the date and time of the instant facts charged from “ around August 3, 201: (a) the period from August 4, 201 to August 7, 2011,” which read “ around August 15:00,” and as the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was found to be by the Defendant on August 4, 2011 through August 7, 2011, between Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, and thereby, the Defendant damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts, stating that “F and other patients have lent KRW 50,000,000,000 to E, and have returned to the said money,” despite that the victim E did not borrow money from the Defendant and did not move to another hospital to avoid this, the Defendant did not move to the other hospital.”

B. The Defendant consistently denies the fact that there was no space between D Hospital around the time and time when the facts charged were entered in the investigation agency to the trial court, and that there was no statement as described in the facts charged.

The evidence consistent with or consistent with the facts charged in the instant case contains each statement between E and F’s police and the court below’s court.

However, when examining the statements of E and F, each of the above statements is not reliable for the following reasons.

1 E is a defendant.