The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles), the Defendant’s statement in the facts charged of this case could have disseminated the Defendant’s statement, recording of recording of the scene at the time, etc., and the Defendant fully recognized the possibility of spreading the above statement.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence of probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be made even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

In addition, in light of the fact that the appellate court has the character as a post-trial and the spirit of substantial direct trial as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubts after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence such as examination of witness, etc.

In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely

Recognizing that the facts charged should not be found guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). In cases where the public performance of insult is recognized on the grounds of the possibility of radio waves, the lower court need at least dolusent intent, and thereby, should be deliberated not only on the possibility of radio waves, but also on the acknowledgement of the risk.