The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence relevant to the summary of the grounds for appeal, namely, (i) D consistently stated that the Defendant was the same as the facts charged; (ii) the Defendant’s statement made to H was a direct statement that directly undermines the reputation of the victim beyond the level of citing the content of another person; (iii) the Defendant’s statement related to sexual intercourse is a sensitive and difficult to verify the truth; and (iv) the Defendant’s statement was made without confirming the facts, with dolusorous intent to recognize the possibility that the fact may be false if the statement was made without confirming the facts, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the charge, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On June 2013, the Defendant injured the Victim F’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts, following the following facts: (a) around 6-7: (b) the Defendant d, while drinking with D and alcoholic beverages, read, “F from the Escopian Escopher in the new wall of 6-7:0 p.m., and then f.m., at the mascopian village; (c) the same shall apply to male-coping f.m.; (d) after the modern department store, F.m., the Defendant damaged F.m.’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts. (ii) the Defendant, while drinking with D and alcoholic beverages, made a false statement to the Victim F.m., “F., who is not a man, and is not a man, who is not a man,” at H and F.m., during the process of doing so.”

B. The lower court: (a) as to the facts charged of the foregoing A-1-1, the statement made by D is different from F’s statement; (b) whether the Defendant’s speech was transmitted to a third party; and (c) whether the other party’s statement was made.