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

1. The lower court, which was subject to the trial of this Court, dismissed a public prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that there was an expression of intent not to punish the victim as to defamation against Defendant A and C, but did not dismiss the public prosecution in its separate order after having acquitted Defendant A and C of interference with each of the duties of Defendants A and C in relation to the commercial concurrent crimes.

The prosecutor filed an appeal only with respect to the part not guilty, and the dismissed part of the above indictment, which is related to the commercial concurrent crimes, was also tried at the appellate court, but the part was already excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties and was actually excluded from the object of trial.

Therefore, the decision of the court below as to the dismissal of the above public prosecution shall be followed and it shall not be judged again.

2. As examined below in the gist of the grounds of appeal, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor revealed that the Defendants are not subject to a trial as to the instant facts charged in the instant case No. 1, thereby excluding the facts of defamation against Defendant A and C.

Although all of the charges can be found guilty, the court below rendered a verdict of innocence on the whole of the charges of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) Defendant A’s damage to property; (b) the damage of the language of the instant washing machine was damaged; and (c) Defendant A was in a normal condition at the time of the transfer of the said washing machine; (d) Defendant A opened the said washing machine and got out of it three times; and (e) Defendant A discovered that the said washing machine was damaged due to the said act by the Defendant A around the day of the occurrence of the instant case; (c) while recognizing the fact that the said washing machine was damaged by the said act as above, Defendant A’s relation with the person that destroyed the instant washing machine and Defendant A was dolusis.