The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 1 million.

The Defendant appealed against the lower judgment prior to the remand on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing.

In the trial before remand, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment of violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) under the name of the preliminary crime, and applied for changes in the name of the preliminary crime “Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Use of Cameras, etc.)” under Article 14(2) and Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.

Before remanding the case, “The Defendant may have posted this case’s photograph with another intention, so the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone alone proves that there was a purpose of slandering the Defendant to the extent that it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is insufficient to view the facts charged in this case. It constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

The judgment of not guilty of the primary facts charged on the ground that it is ", on the other hand, sentenced the defendant to a fine of KRW 500,000,000 on the primary facts charged."

The defendant brought a final appeal against the judgment of the court of final appeal before the remanding.

The court of final appeal made it clear that the photographing material of Article 14(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes refers to the photographing material of another person who takes the body of the person who takes the photograph of the person who takes the photograph of the person in question. Thus, it is interpreted beyond the ordinary meaning of the language that the photographing material of the person who takes the body by himself is included in the photographing material of the person in question. The photograph of this case taken by D is the body of the defendant.