The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal did not objectively confirm that the victim embezzled the amount of money or embezzled the act of deception against the fraternity, but the Defendant only reported the details of the passbook and expressed that the victim was punished by embezzlement, etc., thereby impairing the reputation of the victim. In short, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to mistake of facts and Article 310 of the Criminal Act, even though it cannot be deemed an act for the public interest under Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

2. The court below found the victim not guilty of the violation of Article 310 of the Criminal Act because it appears that the victim's arbitrary use of the time limit amount of KRW 2 million without obtaining the consent of all the members of the community could constitute embezzlement, and even if the defendant, who became aware of such a circumstance, made a statement as stated in the facts charged because he had a somewhat different appraisal on the place where all the members of the community were gathered, it appears to have been the main purpose of point out that it would be to point out the inappropriate management of the victim's fraternitys and the victim's guidance, and therefore, it is reasonable to view it as a statement for the public interest. In light of the circumstances stated by the court below, the court below's aforementioned decision is justified.

Even if the Defendant partly intended to criticize the victim, the application of Article 310 of the Criminal Act cannot be ruled out, even if the primary purpose of the Defendant’s expression of the fact was for the sake of public interest, as seen above, even if there was an incidental other purpose in the crime of defamation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6342, Nov. 13, 2008). Therefore, it is difficult to accept the prosecutor’s above assertion on a different premise.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.