The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal reveals that the Defendant posted the instant article for the purpose of slandering the victim, but the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding the facts, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the victim D filed a complaint against the member of C; and (b) the Defendant posted a notice of the instant facts charged; and (c) the Defendant used a direct criticism and criticism against the victim’s act.

2. The lower court determined, based on the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s notices mainly consisting of the contents of D’s remarks, the composition of the Truth Investigation Committee, and the indication of D; (b) the place where the comments are posted is limited to the members of the above organization; (c) the statement of D is per se, which may cause confusion in the operation of C; and (d) the Defendant’s separate expression of criticism or criticism of D’s character is not used; and (e) the Defendant’s expression of direct criticism or criticism of D’s character is considered to be related to the public interest of C and its members; and (e) the Defendant’s aforementioned statement was posted with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor for the purpose of slandering D.

For reasons of insufficient recognition, the defendant was acquitted.

A thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, and only after D filed a complaint against its members, the defendant posted the article of this case.

However, in light of the above circumstances revealed by the court below, since the main motive or purpose of the Defendant’s posting of the instant text appears to be for the public interest of C and its members, there was a purpose of slandering D against the Defendant.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, the lower court’s determination of not guilty of the facts charged of this case is justifiable.