The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the relationship between D and the victim, the method of the Defendant’s statement, etc. as the other party to the statement of the grounds for appeal, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant had dolusent perception and intent to allow defamation and radio wave.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On March 11, 2013, at least 21:00, the Defendant’s summary of the facts charged refers to the “E operated by D” in Busan Southern-gu, Busan-gu, as of March 11, 2013, the Defendant heard from D that the lessee of the above bath would have been able to repair the bath, and that he would have been able to do so, and that D would have been able to do so, and he would be able to say, “I would like to do so, and I would be able to do so, and if I would like to do so, I would like to us. I would like to see, if I would like to do so, I would like to us. I would like to see that I would like to see it. I would like to say, “I would like to see how I would like to do so.”

However, the Defendant did not have any sufficient reason to report to the lessee that F, which is the subject of the above bath building, would have been able to take the bath against the lessee.

Nevertheless, the Defendant undermined F’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts.

3. The public performance, which is the constituent element of the crime of defamation of the court below, refers to the state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized, and even if one person expresses the fact, if there is a possibility of spreading it to many and unspecified persons, it shall meet the requirements of public performance. However, if the public performance of defamation is acknowledged on the ground of propagation, it is necessary to dolusence as a subjective element of the elements of crime.