The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal recognized that the Defendant did not verify the facts before distributing the printed materials, and that the statement of the senior citizens’ money, such as H and I, “the victim did not have any fact-finding, nor recommended him to do so.” In full view of the following, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, while recognizing that he was false facts, has damaged the reputation of the victim by pointing out false facts.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case, and the judgment of the court below erred by mistake.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment, in light of the following circumstances, found that the Defendant had a false perception of the facts posted in the printed material in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

It cannot be readily concluded, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the facts charged in this case are beyond reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see

The decision was determined.

1) Although the victim asserts that he/she did not sell health assistive food to the senior citizens, G, a member of the senior citizens, was present in this court and purchased health assist food directly from the senior citizens.

was stated.

2) On March 2015, E, F, and H, a full member of the elderly, purchased household health auxiliary foods to officetels with a victim’s friendship according to the victim’s guidance.

Although E, F, and H purchased health assistive food from a person other than the victim;

In light of the place and the circumstances of purchase, the victim sold health assistive food to the senior citizens sufficiently.

There is room to think about it.

3) Health auxiliary foods purchased by E, F, H, and G are not distributed domestically, and are not distributed domestically.