The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) falls under a statement of fact, and thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and misconception of legal principles.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

A. When the prosecutor changes the indictment, the prosecutor added Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act to the applicable provisions of the Criminal Act to the defendant, stated the facts of the previous offense, and applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that the period of some crimes is corrected, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

B. The summary of the facts charged that changed as to whether to be acquitted is a person who was dismissed on April 25, 2014 after serving as a taxi engineer in Company B.

The Defendant asserted that he was unfair dismissal, and applied for remedy against B, “unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices” to the National Labor Relations Commission, and was dismissed as of August 8, 2014. The Seoul Northern District Court filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity, etc., and received a dismissal judgment as of March 16, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 20, 2016.

From November 9 to January 28, 2017 to January 28, 2018, the Defendant defamationed the reputation of the complainant, who is the representative director of the Seoul Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, by putting up a banner stating the following: (a) before November 9, 2017 to January 28, 2018, D, the representative director of the corporation B, did not receive the reduction or exemption of value-added tax; and (b) although the dismissal of the Defendant is justifiable, even though the Defendant was the party, the Defendant did not pay the reduction or exemption of value-added tax.

B. From January 29, 2018 to June 25, 2018