All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of Defendant A, comprehensively taking account of the following facts: (a) Defendant A did not have any good link, such as filing a criminal complaint against G several times; (b) the content of the printed matter indicated in the facts charged of this case (hereinafter “the instant printed matter”); (c) the following day following the distribution of printed matter in this case was conducted between Defendant A and G; (d) Defendant A’s dismissal voting was conducted against Defendant A; (e) the head of an investigation agency confirmed CCTV; (e) reversed the statement after checking CCTV; and (e) Defendant B did not adequately explain the reasons why he visited Defendant A’s house before distributing the instant printed matter; and (e) Defendant B did not properly explain the reasons why he visited Defendant A’

It is reasonable to view it.

B. In the case of Defendant B, in full view of the following: (a) the statement on the method of distributing the instant printed matter is not consistent; (b) the reason why the Defendant’s house was visited before distributing the instant printed matter was not adequately explained; and (c) the mother of Defendant B was f close to Defendant A and E, there was an intentional act of sharing the act of defamation with Defendant B.

It is reasonable to view it.

(c)

Defendant A did not participate in the preparation and distribution of the instant printed matter, and Defendant B knew that Defendant B had the intention of joint processing, or that the instant printed matter was false.

For reasons that it is difficult to recognize the Defendants as not guilty of all the facts charged in this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that Defendant A is the chairperson of the Dong-dong apartment unit D in Suwon-si, E is the 102 representative of the above apartment unit, Defendant B is the father of the audit committee of occupants of the above apartment unit.

Defendants conspired, around March 24, 2017, with the title “A” at the A’s house located in the foregoing apartment No. 101-1302, the Defendants called “D apartment residents’ remarks.”