The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

【Judgment on Grounds for Appeal】

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not state any statement that impairs G’s reputation, as described in the facts charged.

(In fact-finding). 2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. On May 2012, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant: (a) carried out meals with the F and three other persons, who are members of the committee on emergency countermeasures against the building A, in the cafeteria located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si; and (b) destroyed the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by stating that “G was able to conceal the lower age of 601 of the building A and 601, even though the victim G did not have resided therein; and (c) “G was able to keep the Defendant at 3 times of the new wall.”

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the Defendant’s partial statement, witness F, G, and H’s statutory statement, etc.

3. In a criminal trial for a trial for a trial of a political party, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt, and thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to reach such a degree that it would lead to such conviction, the determination should be based on the defendant’s interest even if there is a suspicion of guilt.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do3722, Sept. 26, 2013). Direct evidence of the facts charged in the instant case lies in F and I’s statement at the place where the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, said Defendant made a statement that he had damaged the reputation of G, and G transferred the Defendant’s oral statement from F to F immediately after the instant case. We examine the credibility of the said F, I, and G’s statement.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the credibility of the F, I, and G’s statements is insufficient.