The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The lower court convicted the Defendant of embezzlement among the facts charged.

However, as the defendant did not appeal against the guilty part, the above part is out of the object of public defense among the parties.

Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is followed with respect to the guilty part of embezzlement against the defendant, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below against

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The judgment of the court below which acquitted M by recognizing that the defendant was assaulted by her husband by her husband, as a legitimate act, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a legitimate act.

The summary of the facts charged, around 2012, the Defendant injured the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out the fact that “the Defendant got from the victim D to the Paris bond, etc.,” in the family of pro-friendly Ma in Gangnam-gun L, Gangnam-gu, 201.

Judgment

The court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Defendant actually committed an assault from D, the husband of the Defendant; (b) the Defendant himself lockedd several times from D’s house at the time of the Defendant’s assault; and (c) the Defendant made the horses identical to the facts charged in order to mislead the Defendant’s damage in the process; and (c) the Defendant made the horses to the same effect only when there is no other customer in M’s beauty room; (d) in light of all the circumstances such as the circumstance leading up to the above act, its purpose, means, and intent, it was difficult to view that it is unlawful to the extent that it is acceptable by social norms.

Considering the relationship between the defendant and M, the overall contents of the statement, the circumstances leading to such a statement, the timing of the statement, etc., the defendant himself/herself shall be subject to a friendly person M.