All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. In full view of the contents of the written coal application as stated in the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “the instant written coal application”) and the process of selection and preparation of the Gu, the Defendants recognized that the honor of the victim would be damaged in the process of receiving signatures from village residents, etc. in the instant written coal application.

It is reasonable to view it.

However, the court below held that the Defendants had the intent to impair the honor of the victim.

For the reason that it is difficult to see that the facts charged in this case were acquitted, the judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of defamation.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, committed an intentional act against the Defendants on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, in light of the purpose, background, content, and form of the instant written application for ammunition.

On the ground that it is difficult to conclude this case’s charges are acquitted.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the Defendants’ act as stated in the facts charged in the instant case does not violate social norms, and the illegality is not acknowledged pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is justified, and thus, the prosecutor’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles cannot be accepted.

① On November 12, 2015, when Defendant A and Defendant A had a dispute over the purchase of rice, which is the head of the village, at the end of the house of Defendant A, the victim took part in the face of Defendant A once, and Defendant A also took part in the face of the victim twice. As a result, the victim and Defendant A fighted on a brupted body, which requires six weeks of treatment, the victim suffered injury, such as a 11-day catus catus for each side of the six weeks of treatment, and the Defendant A suffered injury, such as the right fatum catum, which requires three weeks of treatment.