All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is the money paid as food expenses, not the money paid for the operation and maintenance expenses, and E does not have any gift for a high-value drinking to H. The Defendants damaged the honor of E by pointing out false facts as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Defendants A and B of the facts charged of the instant case are the security guards, and Eul are the head of the same D security guards.

On November 2013, the Defendants conspired to make a false statement that “The head of security service team brings about KRW 70,000 won at one hundred thousand won of the operating and maintenance expenses that the head of security service team pays to the company, and the expenses that caused the problem have brought about a close relationship, such as gifting a high-priced alcoholic beverage to the security officer H, among the expenses paid by the head of security service team to the head of the security service team in order to restore the person to his/her status for his/her failure to comply with the request of his/her failure to comply with the request of his/her failure to comply with the request of his/her failure to comply with the request of his/her failure to comply with the request of his/her failure to comply with the request of the head of the office

3. Determination

A. The facts constituting the elements of the crime charged in a single criminal trial as to whether the Defendants alleged false facts or the objective requirements are the prosecutor’s burden of proof. As such, in the case prosecuted for defamation by a statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the fact that the public allegation was revealed that there was a loss of people’s social reputation, and that the public allegation was not consistent with objective truth and was made by the Defendant with the awareness that the publicly alleged facts were false, all the prosecutor must prove that the public allegation was made, and in this case, whether the publicly alleged facts were false or not.