The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant posted a false fact openly through an information and communications network with intent to defame the victim I at each date, time, and place indicated in the facts charged, thereby impairing the reputation of the victim (the primary facts charged), and at least insulting facts (the preliminary facts charged).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the Internet posts written by the defendant are not victim I but for K is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below as to the main facts charged 1) is erroneous in finding that the defendant did not have written the writing (hereinafter "No. 1 notice") as to the main facts charged 1) against the victim I (hereinafter "victim No. 1"), but the conclusion of the court below that acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is justifiable as long as the defendant did not purposely to defame the victim (the following Paragraph (a)). Therefore, the prosecutor's argument that the mistake of the facts in this part of the court below affected the judgment and that it was illegal is not justified.

A. The subject of the first notice: The following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court.

A) A victim I was in charge of the Internet car page table created by those opposing the Defendant around the day of the first notice.

B) Around May 2009, the Defendant recommended the Victim I as an officer of the Consultative Council for Residents in Apartment Building, and the investigative agency said the Victim I as “the supervising expert” (the investigation record No. 181 pages), and around August 2009, the Defendant was also conducting external negotiations with the Victim I as a representative of the Consultative Council for Residents and a “building member,” respectively (the investigation record No. 58 pages). In addition, the Defendant introduced I as a building expert (the witness I).