The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor's appeal is that the victim is merely a private person, not a public official, and the defendant posted the letter of this case contains unilaterally the content of the victim's inner private area, the defendant written the article of this case by using a language that criticizes the victim and a stimulative expression, and the overall purport of the article of this case appears to be a stimulative movement of the damaged party's stores, and due to the article of this case, the damage of the victim's defamation, etc. is greater than the necessity of the victim's sharing, it can be fully recognized that the defendant posted the article of this case through an information and communications network for the purpose of slandering the victim, and thus, damages the victim's reputation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that posted this case in order for the defendant to defame the victim.

Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding of facts, as otherwise alleged in the prosecutor’s assertion, that found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

In addition, the instant text posted by the Defendant written the content of the victim’s private area, and partially used insulting expressions, such as denying the victim, etc. However, it is difficult for the Defendant to share information on India travel, such as “D’s sexual violence against women during the course of delivery to Korea, as one of the Kafs, is becoming a social issue, and the sexual violence against women is becoming a social issue.