The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be determined by a fine of KRW 1,00,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant of the crime of defamation by the statement of false facts without demanding changes in the indictment, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, even if the above article is false, considering the method of expression that was not clearly expressed by the defendant and the direct and explicit contents of the advertisement, it is recognized that there was a purpose of slandering the defendant at the time. Even if false proof is insufficient, it does not recognize the reduction as a crime of defamation by the factual presentation, and it does not require changes in the indictment.

A. Although there is a false fact about the part concerning victim D, and there is a statement about the witness E, F’s statement, and the statement of statement about E prepared by the police prepared by the victim E on behalf of the victim D and the defendant as evidence that the defendant stated that it was appropriate for the defendant to know it, these evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, whether the court requests the prosecutor to change the indictment or not, it cannot be viewed as unlawful because the court did not demand the prosecutor to change the indictment. In addition, in a case where a minor criminal facts included in the facts charged within the scope recognized as identical to the facts charged are acknowledged, if it is deemed that there is no possibility of causing substantial disadvantage to the defendant’s exercise of his right to defense in light of the progress of the trial, it may be recognized as a criminal facts different from the facts charged ex officio, but in this case, unless it is deemed significantly contrary to justice and equity, it cannot be viewed as unlawful by the court ex officio that it did not recognize such criminal facts.