The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although it is sufficient to view that a preliminary candidate to run in an election for public office or his lineal ascendant would undermine the social assessment of the preliminary candidate to run in an election for public office or his lineal ascendant through the statement of specific facts, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts by

However, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of all the charges of this case on the ground that each of the Defendant’s comments included part of the facts, however, on the ground that the F Preliminary’s history director, and the value judgment or evaluation as to the qualities, qualifications, etc. as preliminary candidates for presidential elections, or the Defendant’s personal opinion was written.

In addition, there is room to view the part of the notice in paragraph (3) of the facts charged by the court below as a statement of facts which can be proved. However, all expressions before and after the notice are merely an expression of opinion on the quality, etc. of F preliminary candidates rather than a statement of facts, or an irregular and anti-defensive evaluation thereof. It is difficult to view that the above part as the overall intent of the defendant at the time of the notice is clearly distinguishable from other parts, and it is difficult to suggest a specific fact as the basis of the defendant's assertion. Most words used in that part are, namely, most words used in that part, i.e., "child-friendly union", "operation", "promotion of regional appraisal", and "division of division, etc.," and further, the part of the facts charged including the above paragraph (3) does not appear in full view of the following facts.