All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victims of misapprehension of the legal doctrine were already aware of the existence of each of the comments on the comments (1) in the attached list of crimes (hereinafter “instant comments”) at the time of submitting a written complaint to an investigation agency six months before the filing of the written complaint, and the clinic and ID of the maker.

The victims become aware of the criminal in the event that they confirmed the her clinic and ID of the author of the instant comments.

It should be seen, and all complaints filed by victims after the lapse of six months from that time are in side law with the lapse of the period for filing complaints.

2) The punishment of the lower court is heavy.

B. Prosecutor 1) In other words, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles (not guilty part) posted each comments on the comments made in the attachment list (2) constitutes an election campaign prohibited by the National Intelligence Service Act.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of “election campaign” and by erroneously interpreting the meaning of “election campaign.”

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing is somewhat weak.

2. Determination

A. On January 201, 201, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (guilty part) victim B and D confirmed the existence of the comments on the instant comments posted by the Defendant at an investigative agency, and the Defendant’s clinic, the author thereof, around February 2012.

The term "" refers to the following.

On the other hand, the victim B was insulting as the legal representative of the victim E, who was the victim himself/herself and a minor, on October 7, 2013, and the victim D was insulting to each investigation agency on January 23, 2014.

A complaint seeking punishment was filed with the victim B and D, which is obvious from February 2012 to June 2012, when the victim B and D confirmed the existence of the comments on the instant case, and the NA and ID of the originator.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence examined by the court below was considered as a whole, and the victim B and D merely expressed the comments of this case.