The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main contents of the article posted by the Defendant in the summary of the grounds of appeal are as follows: (a) the victim’s appearance and horses are fluoring; and (b) the victim’s fluoration beyond a simple negative assessment on the victim.

The Defendant written the instant notice for the purpose of preventing the victim from contributing to E, and it is difficult to deem that there was a purpose for the public interest of the Defendant.

In full view of the motive of the Defendant’s posting of the instant text, the overall purport of the text, the character of the bulletin board, specific method of expression, and the proportion of insulting expressions in the entire text, there is no room for the Defendant’s act to constitute an act that does not violate the social norms.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act was unlawful by Article 20 of the Criminal Act, on the grounds that the part in the facts charged in the Defendant’s writing may be deemed to be an insulting speech that may damage the victim’s social assessment, on the grounds that the Defendant’s viewing of E and the Defendant’s offering of comments on the perception and improvement measures thereof, and the Defendant’s offering of the instant writing is operated to reflect the diverse sounds of citizens, such as improvement of corrective measures or inconvenience in living in B viewing, and the overall content of this article is not appropriate for broadcast, and it is not appropriate for a broadcast to use the face or voice of a public official who contributed to poppy, voice, voice, and voice, and the production of the said broadcast solely with images and voice, and is not contrary to the social rules, and thus, it is not contrary to the purpose of Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

As a result of the review of records, the above determination by the court below is justified and there is no error of law by mistake of facts alleged by the prosecutor.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.