The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not explicitly indicate false facts, but the Internet bulletin board on which the Defendant written a written article by the Defendant was directly managed by the victim, and the victim may delete the writing directly, and it is not a place where many and unspecified persons can view it as a very small number of visitors.

Nevertheless, the lower court publicly stated false facts by the Defendant.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. As to the amendment of the indictment for the deliberation of the political party, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content that the indictment of this case was changed as stated in the annexed facts of the crime, and the court permitted the amendment.

In doing so, the judgment of the court below, which recognized ex officio criminal facts as stated in the revised facts, has changed the subject of the judgment according to the changes in the indictment above.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not reversed on the grounds of changes in the indictment in the trial.

B. In a case where an application for permission to amend an indictment was filed by a prosecutor who withdraws all the facts charged in a concurrent relationship with the omission of a decision to dismiss a public prosecution, if the purport of the application is obviously clear that the partial withdrawal of a public prosecution is an application to revoke the public prosecution, such application shall be deemed revoked even if the application is not in the form of an application to revoke the public prosecution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do67, Mar. 22, 198). According to the records, the prosecutor submitted an application for permission to amend an indictment, which deleted the part of the facts charged in the instant case on January 8, 2014 from the date of the second public trial of the lower court on August 17, 2015, concerning violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. through the Internet following the Internet (Defamation).