All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal can be acknowledged that the Defendants included the contents of the article posted in their respective accounts E, and thus, there was a purpose of slandering the Defendants, and as long as the purpose of slandering is recognized, it cannot be deemed that it was for the public interest.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on all the charges against the Defendants. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment did not have any doubt that the Defendants expressed the relevant legal principles regarding the crime of aiding and abetting candidates under the main sentence of Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act and the grounds for the illegality of the proviso of the same Article, and stated in its reasoning. ① In each of the instant facts charged by the Defendants posted by the Defendants, the objective fact that H candidates worked in N at the time of the military regime is publicly known, and the candidate’s career in the election of public officials is about public interest issues with the public nature and social nature that the voters should know, and thus, it is difficult to view that the candidate’s career belongs to a pure private sector. ② There is no doubt that the Defendants intended to win the H candidate’s candidate’s election. However, it appears that there was a public interest purpose for guaranteeing citizens’ right to know, and providing materials for determination to voters. ③ In light of the content of each of the instant facts charged, if the Defendants widely known the contents of each of the instant facts charged, it can only be deemed that the candidate’s career did not affect the candidate’s election.