The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On December 2, 2015, the summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) there was a dispute over the theft of kimchi between the Defendant and the victim on December 2, 2015; and (b) the person who confirmed CCTV in the same day recognized the fact that the Defendant made the victim’s request as stated in the facts charged and damaged the reputation of the victim; (c) the lower court acquitted the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts

2. Determination

A. On December 2, 2015, the Defendant of the facts charged prior to the amendment of the instant indictment was in the center for senior citizens of Songpa-gu Seoul apartment complex, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and the Defendant did not bring a copy of the victim D Kim Jong-chi in the center for senior citizens, despite that there was no fact that the victim D would bring about one copy of the kimchi at the center for senior citizens, the Defendant 20 members of the center for senior citizens 20, who are

The honor of the victim was damaged by openly pointing out false information, “n't have been salved and has been at the same time.”

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged prior to the above alteration, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In the facts charged, whether the defendant sees kimchi as a common part of him;

N. At the time of the statement “I.D.” (hereinafter “the instant statement”), 20 members of the center for senior citizens were heard around the center at the time of the statement.

However, the witness D, E, and F stated “The Defendant made the instant statement in the form of D, E, and G (E).

In the last place where the members of the center for senior citizens were in the heart, the defendant was killed in his/her own kimchi as a kimchi dynas.

The statement was made to the effect that the Defendant was “(F)” (F) stated to the effect that “At the time of drinking 12:00, the CCTV-related debate and the Defendant’s instant remarks were made from D at the time of drinking.” However, this is inconsistent with D and E’s statement to the effect that the Defendant made the instant remarks after 2:0 p.m.