The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is objectively false facts. However, even if the defendant's statement is based on the defendant's statement, all comments were posted from the occupants without any verification procedure as to the authenticity. Thus, at least, the defendant was aware of the fact that the notice was false, but the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on a different premise, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. (1) Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor, who found the Defendant not guilty, maintained the “violation of Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) due to the statement of false facts (Article 70(2) of the above Act)” as the primary facts charged, and applied for permission to amend a bill of indictment to add “violation of Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation of Act: Article 70(1) of the above Act) due to the occurrence of false facts (Article 70(2) of the above Act)” as the preliminary facts charged. However, as seen below, this court permitted this and added the subject to the judgment. (2) As long as the court judged the primary facts charged and found the Defendant not guilty as the primary facts charged, the court below’s judgment that only the primary facts charged was no longer maintained, but despite the existence of such grounds for ex officio destruction,

B. On March 11, 2017, a summary of the facts charged by the prosecutor’s first instance judgment regarding the grounds for appeal cannot be identified.