The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case and the summary of the facts charged in this case’s judgment were requested to the president of the Corporation when the Defendant had access to the Defendant’s company office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government website bulletin board on September 23, 2015, and the phrase “107 Dong-dong and E, the president of which, after having access to the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Seongbuk-gu website bulletin board, respectively, demanded the expenses to be incurred by the Defendant to the president of the Corporation on December 2014.

“Along with the purpose of slandering by posting false comments, etc., the victim’s reputation was undermined by stating false facts openly through an information and communications network.

As to this, the lower court, as the Defendant, has a reasonable ground to believe that the content of the instant notice was true.

In addition, it is sufficiently proven that the defendant made a statement with the awareness that the content of the above notice is false.

It is difficult to see that the primary purpose is to promote the interest and interest of all occupants, and the purpose of slandering is denied, and the defendant was acquitted.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not go through the procedure to grasp the minimum degree of truth, and posted a notice on the bulletin board so that many people can see the truth as if it were the fact, and dolusent intent is recognized that the notice was posted at least in awareness of the fact that it may not be a timely statement.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous.

3. Determination on whether a deliberation was made

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

A) The Director F of the Management Center for D Apartments (hereinafter “instant apartment”) was completed on September 21, 2015 on the ground that the case is common how the construction was completed on the apartment site from E on January 21, 2015.

shall have been asked for any question;