The judgment below

Of the above, Defendant A violated the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation).

1. Summary of prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation): the lower court acquitted the Defendants on the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) on the grounds that it is difficult to deem that the victim did not assault the Defendant A only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to have proved that he did not assault the Defendant A without any reasonable doubt.

However, in full view of the statements of T, situation at the time of the assault, and the statements of the victim with credibility that the victim did not see the scene of assaulting the defendant A, the victim may be recognized as having not committed the defendant A. Thus, the defendants should be deemed to have injured the victim's reputation by pointing out false facts that the victim abused the defendant A for the purpose of slandering the victim.

Therefore, among the judgment below, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding that Defendants violated the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection (Defamation).

B. Defendant A’s insult: The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict as to Defendant A’s insult on the ground that, although the writing posted by Defendant A constitutes insulting expressions, it did not be determined that it constitutes an act contrary to social rules, and thus, illegality is excluded under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

However, in full view of the overall purport of the writing posted by Defendant A criticizes the victim, and taking into account the content of insulting expressions, such as “F”, “definite,” and “China”, Defendant A’s de facto status and influence, and comments on the relevant writing, etc., Defendant A’s posting of written comments as stated in the facts charged does not violate the social rules stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act.