The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rejected all the statements of the victim D, E, and F without reasonable grounds, and found that G and H were reliable in their statements, and found not guilty of the facts charged of this case. G is consistent with the defendant's interest requiring removal of street points because G is engaged in business at a shop, and H is highly likely to make a false statement for the defendant, and G and H are highly likely to be made for the defendant.

The court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence.

2. Determination:

A. On March 2, 2013, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) around 17:15, the Defendant made a public insult of the victim of the instant case, who was residing in the same apartment building in front of the Gangnam-gu Seoul apartment commercial building, and had a usual appraisal of the said apartment building, on several occasions, such as “national fraud change,” and “the width change,” on the job where many customers live in the same apartment building.”

B. The lower court determined that G and H’s witness of the situation at the time stated in the lower court to the effect that, at the same time, the Defendant’s two females engaged in funeral services at the court below stated that “the disabled persons who are running on the street are not changed to the State’s fraud because they are engaged in funeral services at an unauthorized building without paying taxes or paying taxes,” and that D interfered with the foregoing purport that “the State is not changed to the State’s fraud.” The lower court acknowledged the credibility of G and H’s statement, and acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is difficult to recognize the facts charged of the instant case.

C. In a criminal trial for a trial for a final judgment, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant may be found guilty.