1. Examining the reasoning of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant A was guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of the crime of defamation, the purpose of slandering, and the rejection of illegality, contrary to logical and empirical rules.

2. Examining the reasoning of Defendant B’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant B was guilty of this case’s charges on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so determining, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criminal intent, possibility of dissemination, or performance of

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.