All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the obstruction of the performance of the duties by Defendant A’s fraudulent means, the lower court: (a) requested Defendant A to 155bps to extend the breadth of the said line to the Central Election Management Commission (hereinafter “Central Election Management Commission”) website at the time of the instant election; (b) the process that Defendant A received a report on the failure of the said website connected to the said website from Twiter Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EL Plus”)’s customer quality team from T, etc. affiliated with the customer quality team (hereinafter “Dlus”); (c) the process that Defendant A submitted a false report on the failure of the Central Election Management Commission (hereinafter “Nlus”), and (d) the Central Election Management Commission requested Defendant A to present the 155bps to the Central Election Management Commission (hereinafter “Central Election Management Commission”)’s homepage at the time of the instant election; and (d) the circumstances that caused the interference with the Central Election Management Commission’s access to the website at the time of attacking 300 to 40bps; and (c) the reason for Defendant A’s access to the foregoing.

The judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted Defendant A is judged to be difficult to conclude that the content was explained against the truth and upheld.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

(2) such matters as may be necessary, such as the omission of any