Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was acquitted.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the charges of this case on the following grounds: (a) the victim was a public figure as a public official (administrative Grade 6), ② the Defendant notified the victim’s in-depth relationship on the H viewing website, and posted a notice to assist the parties to return to home; (b) the victim who is a public official, was able to have his in-depth and unfolded; (c) the victim did not abstractly express and insulting expressions; (iv) the victim did not use the victim’s real name; and (v) the victim did not use the victim’s name; and (v) how the instant case which was in-house without any action by a related agency took place in the public service society in the same way as the victim’s in-depth manner, and then introduced the victim’s in-depth relationship on the H viewing website; and (v) the victim’s in-depth intent or purpose for public interest.

B. In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the decision of the court below is justified and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

① The Defendant read the text of the appeal prepared by B from F, and the written judgment of the divorce lawsuit (2017ddan5990) brought by C, which was brought by C, against B, and then drafted a notice of the instant case (i.e., investigation records 38, 69, 70 pages), and the said written judgment “C has continuously and wrongfully relations with the victim.”