The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The grounds for appeal by the Defendant 1) As to the facts charged in the instant case, the Seoul High Court dismissed the application for a ruling on non-prosecution disposition by the prosecutor on August 1, 201 in the first instance case 1970 on August 1, 2011.

Therefore, the indictment of this case is null and void in violation of the latter part of Article 262(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which prohibits prosecution against a case for which a decision to dismiss an application for adjudication became final and conclusive.

2) The time when the defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles prepared four pages of the instant medical treatment register is around June 7, 2008, and there was no intention to forge evidence or gather the victim because there was no possibility that criminal cases against the victim may be initiated at the above time.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the time of preparation was around April 24, 2009 or around April 27, 2009 without any lawful evidence, by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and determined that the Defendant’s act constitutes a forgery and use of evidence for the purpose of forging the Defendant’s act.

3) In full view of the factors of sentencing in this case’s allegation of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal (unfair sentencing) of this case’s sentencing conditions, the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant in the instant charge is a person who operated a Korean-style Animal Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

On May 2008, the victim E visited the Defendant Hospital on several occasions, received medical treatment from the Defendant to check his/her return, and posted a notice on the Defendant’s medical negligence on the Internet Docbook bulletin board.

Accordingly, the defendant was indicted against the victim by defamation in Seoul Eastern District Court 2009 and the case of violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation).