The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though it was recognized that there was an objective of slandering the complainant in light of the position of the Defendant, the relationship between the Defendant and the complainant, the degree of the truth of the alleged facts, and

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) for the purpose of slandering the complainant D (for example E) at his/her own residence located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C and B 402 around November 3, 2015, the Defendant, as the title of “F” on the bulletin board of the public website (web address G) “H”, “E number is a head who, as he/she, turns off any male and female population with influenite and turns off a large quantity of water at the end of his/her own residence, the Defendant is the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and B 402.

There is no difference between them, and spread false facts, thereby seriously impairing the honor of two men and women.

I am driving away from I, inciting other women's house by water-earing operations, and withdraw together with I, but I do not see the other problem in the J and do so. So I am driving away from I and instigate another woman's house and inciting another woman's house.

“The lower court organized the facts charged as “the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts,” which was determined under Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”), and organized the facts charged as “the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts,” but the facts charged as “the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts,” and “Article 70(2) of the Information and Communications Network Act,” which was written in the indictment in the column of the application of the Act, is a clerical error in “Article 70(1) of the Information and Communications Network Act”.