A. Although the defendant fully recognizes the fact that he written the comments of this case for the purpose of slandering the victim, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the purpose of slandering the victim. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and the legal principles.

B. Even if the purpose of slandering is not recognized, even if the facts charged in the instant case cannot be found guilty, the lower court ex officio recognized the crime of defamation under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act without modification of an indictment. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined, the court below found that the purpose of this case’s comments is to criticize or criticize the complainants, rather than criticism or criticism, and that the whole purport of this case’s comments is to criticize or criticize the president of HO who is an incorporated association that appointed the complainants as the president of Sacheon Branch. ② Since the site on which the comments on this case’s comments are recorded is a membership system for the huntings, a person other than the members is unlikely to contact the comments on the instant case. ③ Since the part on the complainants in the comments on this case’s comments on the purport that the complainants were punished by thefting the past shooting and fine, and thus, there was no personal character for the complainants, ④ there was no special relationship between the Defendant and the complainants, ⑤ The major motive or purpose of the Defendant’s writing on this case’s comments is to guarantee the free hunting activities and the free hunting activities of the huntings, the prosecutor’s submission of evidence can only be found to be not guilty.

We affirm the judgment of the court below by comparing it with the results of the examination of the defendant at the party and the records.