The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor on the gist of the grounds of appeal, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case by misunderstanding facts or misapprehending the legal principles, although the Defendant’s remarks related to E can be acknowledged as false, and the illegality cannot be avoided.

2. The facts constituting the elements of the offense charged in a criminal trial, whether subjective or objective, are the prosecutor’s burden of proof. As such, in the case prosecuted for the crime of defamation by a statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the fact that the alleged facts do not fit the objective truth, and that the Defendant knew that the alleged facts were false, and that the alleged facts were false, must be proved by all the prosecutor. In this case, in determining whether the alleged facts are false, the entire purport of the alleged facts should be examined. In a case where the material facts are consistent with the objective facts, there is a little difference or somewhat exaggerated expression from the objective facts.

Even if it cannot be viewed as false facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do13718, Sept. 4, 2014). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant stated in the facts charged in this case: (i) "When 10 or more persons, such as the time and time, and place of G business, are present at the H business on August 2013, 201; (ii) when working at the H business on the date and place of the instant facts charged in this case; (iii) when E was employed as a public duty personnel on August 10, 2013; (iv) when E was employed as a public duty personnel; and (v) on August 11, 2013, when I called the team leader to meet the above conditions, the defendant took an interview with J and E, and his desire to come out between the two and the two.