The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor as to the grounds for appeal, the fact that the defendant defames the victimized company by misrepresenting false facts can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court: (a) deemed that the expression “out-to-doorization” itself cannot be deemed as undermining the social value or assessment of the victimized company; (2) at the time of each of the instant remarks by the Defendant, the victimized company was carrying out a project to improve the structure of the victimized company to remove or concentrate part of its low-rise factory buildings and to develop commercial facilities, such as department stores and hotels, in the space secured thereby; (b) there was a serious conflict between the Defendant’s labor union and the FF trade union actively consenting thereto; and (c) there was a public opinion in opposition on the ground that the Plaintiff’s trade union actively opposed thereto would be speculation in the site of factories in local communities; and (d) there was sacrifice in the region; and (e) there was an active handling of the opinions on the above projects in various media; and (e) each of the above remarks by each interested party was widely known with various opinions on the improvement of the structure of the victimized company by assembly, etc.; and (e) it appears that each of the above remarks by the Defendant was 20% of the total financial statements to be 20% of the Defendant’s.