The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts that the Defendant made a statement that would impair the reputation of the victim, such as the date and time stated in the facts charged, but did not err by mistake of facts.

2. On January 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was the president of the Mapo-gu Council of Residents’ Representatives; (b) had the victim D to find himself/herself before in dialogue with the apartment residents at the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Office of Management of Apartments; and (c) had the victim D to engage in the color construction of apartment, he/she made a solicitation of publicly false facts to have the chairperson of the Promotion Committee of the Dom Construction; and (d) had the victim D to engage in the

3. Determination

A. The lower court determined that it is difficult for the Defendant to recognize that the witness D’s police statement and the legal statement constituted a professional statement and thus inadmissible as evidence, and that the witness F and E’s respective police statements and the legal statement are not consistent or unclear, making it difficult to believe or recognize the facts charged, on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant made the statement identical to the statement on the date

B. We examine the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, and there is no error of mistake of facts. 2) Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that it was true that D, around December 15, 2012, which was immediately before the election of the president of the council of occupants' representatives, around December 15, 2012, which was the right before the election of the president of the council of occupants' representatives, would be said to be the chairman of the council of the council of net Maritime Affairs, which had two themselves.

The facts charged in this case are premised on the premise that the above facts alleged by the defendant were false, and D also acknowledged that the defendant and the two defendants met before the election of the chairperson (However, the date is claimed as December 12, 2012) and asserted that there was no statement that the defendant would serve as the chairperson of the promotion committee.

Ultimately, it conforms to the facts that the above statement by the defendant is false.