The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal [including the part not guilty (including the part not guilty in the judgment of the original trial)] of defamation against the victim association did not have concluded a contract with the victim association concerning false business, and the project cost was not wasteed, and text messages sent to the union members as shown in the list of crimes in attached Form 1, 3, 4, and 5 (hereinafter referred to as the "mark") for the purpose of slandering.

The victim C of defamation against the victim C has been a tin-opener organization in front of the contract entered into by the partnership with P.

Despite the fact that there was no fact or there was no knowledge that the contract was wrong, and there was no threat that the contract would be a diversity, it sent text messages to union members, such as the statement of innocence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, once a year, for the purpose of slandering.

Judgment

On July 12, 2018, the first public prosecutor did not specify which content of the text message sent by the Defendant was false or false, and the court below permitted the application for changes in indictment to the effect that the false part was specified on the fifteenth public trial date of the court below on July 12, 2018. The gist of the modified facts charged is that “The victim union did not have any waste of business expenses by actually carrying out the housing redevelopment improvement project, and the victim C, the president of the union, operated the sexual members of the union regular meeting of the union on April 12, 2014, or was not able to manipulate the original evidence, thereby impairing the honor of the victims by revealing publicly false facts through the information and communications network for the purpose of slandering the victims eight times.”

Therefore, in the facts charged of the instant case, the content identified as false facts is limited to “the part on which the victim’s association wasted business expenses” and “the part on April 12, 2014, which fabricated the sexual source of the ordinary meeting and the evidence thereof.” Even if the Defendant sent text messages, it is different.