The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, including the victim J and K’s statement, the gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: the Defendant was on June 5, 2012 and the same year.

6.8.Woo and the same year; and

6. The court below acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no proof of a crime. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. This part of the facts charged and the judgment thereof

A. Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. provides that “a person who defames another person by divulging false facts openly through an information and communications network with intent to defame a person” as an element of a constituent element.

In order to establish the “crime of defamation by a false fact” as provided by Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the criminal should publicly indicate the fact, and should have been aware that the publicly alleged fact impairs the people’s social evaluation, and should have been false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4757, Feb. 25, 2000). In a case where the important part in this context is consistent with objective facts, there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression in detail.

Even though it cannot be viewed as a false fact, in determining whether it is a false fact, it shall be determined whether it is an important part that is not consistent with objective facts by examining the purport of the entire details of the alleged fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2137, Apr. 29, 2005). “Purpose of slandering people” under Article 309(2) of the Criminal Act refers to a person who requires intention or purpose of harm.