The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to defamation around June 2013, the lower court determined that: (a) it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant made a statement to G as described in the facts charged; and (b) the Defendant’s statement to G in relation to additional charges could not be considered as false facts.

However, according to the legitimate evidence revealed in the instant case, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant stated in G as stated in the facts charged, and it is false to the effect that the Defendant got refund of additional charges to G as the chief director, with the contents that the Defendant stated in relation to additional charges.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one million won of a fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The E’s investigative agency and the court of original instance have made a statement in the evidence that seems consistent with this part of the facts charged as to the Defendant’s assertion on the contents of the Defendant’s statement.

In other words, as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant stated in G that “E is a gushee who is removed and eating KRW 90,000,000 for commercial buildings; E is bound to the president of the association to choose not to pay the removed and eating commercial buildings; and that the association was placed in the bankruptcy border and became the president and became the head of the union, and that “E is a gushed ebbbbbbbbbbent for finding the additional charges of 28,000,000 won.”

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, it is difficult to believe the above E’s statement as it is, and there is no other evidence to prove this part of the facts charged, and the prosecutor’s above assertion is without merit.

1) G testified that “E sought additional charges of KRW 28 million from the Defendant in the court of original instance,” and that the Defendant did not hear the words as stated in the remaining facts charged (the trial record No. 62 pages). 2) The prosecutor testified that “E” from the Defendant.