All appeals are dismissed.

1. As to Defendant A’s appeal, the above Defendant did not submit a statement of the grounds of appeal, and the petition of appeal did not state the grounds of appeal.

2. As to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, criminal facts should be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence based on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that ① the above Defendant is liable for criminal liability due to publication of false facts and defamation as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the first instance, ② the above Defendant’s election of a member of the National Assembly was “the purpose of preventing a candidate from being elected,” and ③ the above Defendant’s act was not believed to be not in conflict with the Public Official Election Act, ④ the above Defendant’s purpose was the purpose of slandering the above Defendant, ⑤ the revision of the indictment of this case, etc., was not negligent in the course of performing his duties, and rejected the allegation in the grounds for

The ground of appeal disputing the fact-finding of the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the evidence selection and probative value, which actually belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine as seen in the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.