The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. According to each statement made by the victim and the defendant in an investigative agency, it is false that the victim is the principal who distributed the recorded file. The defendant is sufficiently aware of the fact that it was false, and the defendant sent the above text message while recognizing that it was false.

B. The Defendant’s act constitutes a crime of defamation by a statement of true facts under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act even though the Defendant’s alleged fact does not constitute false facts, and the Defendant cannot be found to have recognized the falsity of the facts.

Therefore, the lower court should have determined this part of the indictment even if there was no change in the indictment.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts.

① The lower court also held that, at the time of the Defendant’s request for the recording file of the instant case to the Defendant on October 2015, the Defendant “to hear and delete the recording file only once.”

Any other words, “I never speak,” and “I am aware of the contents of the instant files,” and “I am to (E) the father of the instant D organization G, and the auditor H of the instant case.”

After that, the above file was known to the members, and it is difficult to eliminate the possibility of spreading a question due to itself. ② The Defendant appears to have sent the instant text message to the executive members in order to inform and request relief of the unreasonableness of the instant text message when he was subject to disciplinary action due to the act of E, and the Defendant appears to have presented the text message to the executive members of the executive branch. Such act constitutes a pleading by the person subject to disciplinary action on his own, and it corresponds to the social norms of the society, and otherwise, the Defendant’s statement is false.

at the time the defendant was aware of the falsity;

It is difficult to find out sufficient evidence

On the other hand, the defendant was acquitted.

The lower court’s aforementioned determination.