The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is as follows: defamation by the statement of false facts in Article 1-A of the facts charged; defamation by the statement of false facts in Article 1-A of the facts charged; it is more reliable that E’s statement recorded in the recording book (Nos. 20 through 38 of the evidence record) recording the conversations with I on November 15, 2012, which was stated at the end of the police and in the absence of awareness that someone would be punished, is more reliable; according to the above recording book, it is possible to recognize the fact that the defendant made the statement to E on the date stated in this part of the facts charged, but the court below acquitted him of this part of the facts charged.

In light of the fact that defamation by the statement of false facts as stated in Article 1-b of the facts charged, the relationship between the defendant and F, and F also received a complaint from C, it is unreasonable for F to believe that the statement in the court of the court below was not heard from the defendant as stated in this part of the facts charged, and to deny the admissibility of evidence of the protocol of statement prepared by judicial police officers and the protocol of interrogation of suspect with respect to F is admissible as evidence. Accordingly, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though it can be recognized that the defendant made the statement to F as stated in this part of the facts charged, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

In light of the fact that the insult as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts charged, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant expressed that he would know well that he would know it in detail at the same time, and that C is the chief of the same church, and that the horses of the Defendant are the chief of the same church, it can be recognized that the Defendant expressed Da with a view to undermining the social assessment of C, such as the fact that the Defendant is the chief of the same church, and that the horses of the Defendant are the chief of the same church.