The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below's scope of trial in this case distributed printed matter in English, including "B had caused multiple accidents using an unqualified pilot ("qualified pilot") for 30 years in collusion with the Ministry of Construction and Transportation from June 6, 2006 to June 7, 2006, and from June 9, 2006, at the same place as stated in the judgment of the court below, from among the facts charged in this case, from around 08:30 on June 6, 2006 to around 12:30 on the same day." However, the victim B ("victim B") did not employ an unqualified pilot without an instrument flight qualification. Accordingly, the defendant was not acquitted for the reason that there was no proof of a crime against the facts charged in this case, and found the defendant guilty of defamation crime in relation to the facts charged in this case, and the prosecutor did not appeal the part of the judgment below as to the acquittal portion.

However, if the first instance court found the defendant guilty only for a part of the facts charged which is a simple crime, even if the defendant appealed, the appeal can be tried on the part of the acquittal.

Supreme Court Decision 2001.2

9. In light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below on the part not guilty at the court below as to the part of 2000Do5000, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do500, etc., is just and acceptable

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the scope of adjudication by the retrial court is that only “the part concerning an instrumentless non-qualified person among the allegation that the injured company has employed an unqualified pilot,” and that remaining parts are subject to adjudication.