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

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconceptions of the facts, although the defendants could sufficiently recognize that the defendants violated the honor of victims by pointing out false facts as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

2. In order to establish “the crime of defamation by a false statement of false facts” under Article 307(2) of the former Criminal Code, the time limit should have undermined the social evaluation of others, and the criminal should have recognized that such facts were false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do4757, Feb. 25, 2000). Meanwhile, in a criminal trial, the facts constituting the elements of the crime charged have the burden of proof, regardless of subjective or objective requirements. As such, in the case prosecuted for the crime of defamation by a false statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Code, the fact that there was a statement that has been undermined the social evaluation of the person in the case prosecuted for the crime of defamation by a false statement of false facts, as well as the fact that the alleged facts fail to meet the objective truth, and all the prosecutor must prove that the defendant knew the fact that the alleged facts were false, and in determining whether there was a false fact in this case, the entire purport of the alleged facts should be examined.

Even if it cannot be viewed as false facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1421, Jun. 12, 2008, etc.). In light of these legal principles, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is closely compared with the judgment of the court below. In light of such legal principles, the court below's explanation on the conduct No. 2 through No. 7 of the judgment of the court below is based on various circumstances.