The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of each judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A did not say that the complainant was flicked or flicked with the complainant, Defendant A did not have a speech that the complainant was flicked to the apartment residents, the judgment below that Defendant A damaged the reputation of the victim by publicly speaking that “the low female was flicked” to the apartment residents, it erred in the misapprehension of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant B acknowledged that Defendant B had expressed a desire during telephone conversations with the complainant, but did not notify any harm, but otherwise, Defendant B threatened the complainant, which was erroneous in the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact.

C. The prosecutor asserts that the sentence imposed by the court below [the defendant A: each suspended sentence (the fine of 300,000 won for the defendant A, the fine of 50,000 won for the defendant B] is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

A. On August 2, 2011, Defendant A of this part of the facts charged undermined the reputation of the complainant by openly harming the reputation of the complainant by stating that he was “flaged by a low woman,” while engaging in a dispute with E, a complainant, at the place where the number of the apartment residents was reported in front of the 101-dong Dog-dong 101.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

C. Defendant A consistently denied this part of the facts charged to the purport that there was only a dispute between the complainant and the Defendant’s car damage caused by the damage of the car owned by the complainant and the Defendant A at the time and time from the investigation agency to the court of the trial of the political party. Defendant A consistently denied this part of the facts charged to the purport that there was no “flaparation of the difference by low female” to the apartment residents. The evidence as shown in this part of the facts charged reveals that the complainant was consistent with this part of the facts charged, each of the legal statements made by the complainant, each of the police statements made by the complainant, each of the police statements