The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s investigative agency and the court of the lower court’s determination that the statements of the witnesses and the facts corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case are sufficiently reliable, and the relevant administrative litigation (Seoul Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Guhap10053, 20053, hereinafter “related litigation case”), etc., the defendants may fully recognize the facts that the defendants have injured the victim’s reputation by stating that the victim F and G are the bad will as indicated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the statements of witnesses who correspond to the facts charged in this case without reasonable grounds and acquitted the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case, while sufficiently explaining the grounds for the judgment.

Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in light of the records, a thorough examination of the records reveals that the statements of the victim F, G, and L, as described in the facts charged, are insufficient due to mutual inconsistency between the victim F, G, and the Defendants, and the credibility of these statements is recognized.

Even if such statement alone cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, so there is no error of mistake of facts in the lower judgment that acquitted the instant facts charged with the same purport, as otherwise alleged by the public prosecutor.

B. In addition, even though the facts acknowledged in the judgment of an administrative case related to the facts charged in a criminal trial constitute a valuable evidence for recognition, it is not always bound by the confirmation of the judgment, and in the above-mentioned litigation, there was no witness of the court below related to the facts charged in this case and there was no direct testimony at the appeal court.