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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On January 31, 2015, the Defendant posted to AB a statement to the effect that the Defendant violated the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) (Defamation) against Defendant A, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, the victim AD’s corporate chairperson (hereinafter “victim”) constituted a chemical quantity in which the victim E (hereinafter “victim”) operated and used an environmental impact assessment report related to the new construction of the research institute.

In that sense, even if the information listed in the environmental impact assessment report differs from other information provided by the injured company, the difference does not affect the possibility of new construction authorization or permission of the above research institute, but generally, is understood as a negative act that intentionally misleads false facts differently from the fact, and its meaning differs from the content that the information listed in the environmental impact assessment report is merely different from the actual one.

Therefore, the defendant damaged the reputation by openly pointing false facts for the purpose of slandering the victim AD.

It is reasonable to see that it was about the public interest.

It is also difficult to do so.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous as a matter of law.

B. On February 4, 2015, Defendant A posted on AB a statement to the effect that the broadcast was suspended once at the expense of the victimized company, as stated in this part of the facts charged, against Defendant A’s violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation). In this regard, Defendant asserted to the effect that such a statement was made from the reporter AF affiliated with AF.

However, AG appears in the court of the court below to the effect that the defendant was present as a witness and did not express that he was guilty of the victimized company, and in light of all the circumstances before and after the point of the above notice, the credibility of its statement can be recognized.

AG. In this fact, AG.