beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. On September 30, 2010, September 30, 2010, the decision of the appellate court of a separate criminal trial by the victim of the grounds for appeal was rendered, and around September 30, 2010, the victim was aware of each comments on the comments
Even if the court below found that each of the above comments that the defendant was the defendant at the time of receipt of the complaint of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which led to the omission of the period of the complaint of this case to the extent that the complaint of this case was not guilty (the court below dismissed the indictment of insult, which is the ancillary charge of this case, and acquitted him on the charge of violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) which is the primary charge, and the prosecutor appealed only on the ancillary charge, and appealed against the part of the ancillary charge, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the part of the ancillary charge, and the part which was not acquitted by the prosecutor is exempted from the object of a trial, and leaves it from the object of a de facto trial. Thus, the court below's conclusion of innocence of this part is not followed, and it does not
A. The summary of the instant ancillary charge is that the Defendant was in a litigation relationship with the victim D in the Internet following the car page “C” (hereinafter “the instant car page”).
E (the “E” (the “E”) desires to move in the power-driven match.
“The writing was considered to be written as the title “........”
The main text of the notice of the above E contains the following purport: “The victim did not transfer real estate to the real estate seller and the real estate seller as a real estate broker, and the above seller sent the victim with a false receipt, etc. to the above E by referring the victim to “G real estate HC”.
(1) On July 14, 2008, the Defendant’s insultd the case of Freging Freging “F,” written on the bulletin posted by the above E around July 14, 2008, the following facts are found to have been de factoed by the chip rule of law, which is changed to the fraud.