The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the facts that both Defendants A and B were competing with the operation of a job placement office for the scambling articles, F, G, H, and I stated that all Defendants were called first by telephone or first sent to E, the Defendants reported on the ground that E was using their unauthorized job placement offices, and the Defendants were subject to a fine as a violation of the Employment Security Act. As such, the Defendants stated that the payment of the fine was made only on the ground that E had been made, and that the Defendants did not point out the error of E, but rather did not point out that they would charge E or be subject to criminal punishment, the Defendants were deemed to have been the main purpose of having the scambling articles to work through their own job placement offices. Accordingly, the Defendants' important motive or purpose of the instant remarks is not to mislead the Defendants as to the same kind of business operators or articles for the benefit of the general public, the lower court did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

B. In light of the fact that Defendant C made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court below that “I would not be memoryed, but all three persons would so,” and that it is difficult for all the Defendants to clearly memory what I made in the situation of slandering the complainant, etc., despite the high credibility of the I’s statement, the court below rejected it and acquitted Defendant C on the ground of insufficient evidence. This judgment of the court below is erroneous in matters of law of mistake of facts.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion against Defendant A and B.