The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the subject of the decision on the price is not the victim F but the subject of the decision on the price is the denying K of G of the head of the Dong group. As such, the facts indicated by the Defendant on the Internet car page are false, and therefore, the purpose of defamation is recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the purpose of defamation without determining whether the alleged facts are false, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On January 14, 2012, the Defendant: (a) using Analnet D, “D” on the bulletin board at an insular place (hereinafter “D”) around 10:59, the facts charged are: (a) the victim F, the president of the apartment of the above E-building, did not arbitrarily select and install the E-building apartment, or did not arbitrarily determine the installation cost; (b) the president of the Dong Council attempted to install or install the G couple at his own expense; and (c) the payment of the expenses was ultimately made after the completion of the ex post facto resolution from the apartment management expenses; (d) the Defendant would make a statement about the operation of the apartment representative meeting at the end, “I am for the purpose of slandering the victim,” and “I will make a resolution at the representative meeting of the apartment complex 2 complex residents - First - First - to execute the funds; and (b) would then select and pay the expenses after receiving an estimate. However, I arbitrarily determined the content of the E-building by publicly stating the content of the victim H-H.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) facilitate the use of information and communications networks on the above facts charged.