The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor (misunderstanding of the facts), the Defendant: (a) was at the end of November 2015, the Defendant embezzled and escaped the deposits received from G, H, and I, a merchant; and (b) was at the time, and (c) there was no fact that the Defendant embezzled the deposits received from the victim E, H, and I around November 2015.

G, H, and I demanded the return of one million won of the deposit paid to the merchant's association, and the victim E, the former president of the said merchant's association, called "the victim E, was removed and fleded by the former president," and the money received from the person, thereby infringing the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

2. In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant made a statement as to the facts charged at the time and place specified in the instant facts charged by the prosecutor alone.

For the reason that it cannot be readily determined, innocence was pronounced.

The following circumstances revealed through evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court’s judgment, i.e., the Defendant’s defamation remarks in the facts charged of this case.

The witness H of the court below stated that the defendant returned to the market and did not speak in the facts charged.

On January 2016, 2016, the statement was made by the witness I of the original trial (74 pages), ② the statement in the facts charged was made to the effect that he was not well aware of whether he appeared in the street where he was on the street in which he was on the street (the page No. 86 of the trial record), ③ the witness G of the original trial also made a statement to the effect that he appeared in the statement in the facts charged of this case from the Defendant, but G voluntarily made electricity, gas, and the fact that he did not know whether he appeared in such a manner (the page No. 86 of the trial record).