Preventive Security Service and the Public Prosecution. Subsequently, he was summoned by the Preventive Security Service regarding the same case, without any legal memorandum allowing that for all of this. The defence requests the acceptance of the appeal as subject matter, annulment and/or annulment of the appealed judgment, declaration of the appellant's innocence on the third charge, and annulment of the judgment obligating him to pay an amount of 100 JD in exchange for expenses and trial expenses. Trial procedures In the ongoing trial held in public and in the session of 6/27/2022, it was decided to accept the appeal in form, due to its receipt of the information and its fulfilment of its formal requirements. Then the appellant’s representative repeated the appeal list, and an attorney for the Public Prosecution office denied the appeal list. The legal requirement, and the prosecutor pleaded, seeking to reject the appeal in substance and support the appealed verdict, since the appealed sentence was in conformity with the principles and the law, then the session was adjourned for scrutiny and the issuance of the sentence. In the session of 10/5/2022, the trial procedures were concluded by reading the resolution. Court After deliberation, the appellant appealed against the Nablus Magistrate's Court judgement No. 2020/2411 of 2022/1/20, convicting the appellant of the third charge against the public authority, contrary to the provisions of Article 45 of Decree Law No. 10 of the year 2018 regarding cybercrimes, in the sense of Article 191 of the Penal Code, and accordingly the judgment of imprisonment for a period of three months and obligating him to pay trial expenses of 100 Jordanian dinars. And with our court’s treatment of the fourth, fifth and sixth reasons of the appeals list related to the first instance court’s mistake by assessing the evidence and by applying the correct law to the facts, then after returning to the papers, the case and the evidence presented therein with regard to the charge with which the appellant was convicted, which is the offence against the Public Authority, we find that the established incident that the appellant sent, via the WhatsApp, is a private message during a conversation with a girl named Majdouline, and he replied (their sister is on the sister of their devices with my legs, small people who are mutilated). In the context of talking about the Palestinian security services, and this was proven through the minutes of the appellant’s interrogation in 9/16/2022. In which was mentioned (...and by his question about the same conversation with the female citizen, Majdouline, that you said (Screw them and their Security services. Such thugs, disrespectful people.) He answered: anyone who practices bullying against any protestor in the street and transgresses the law and prevents any movement within the framework of the law with thugs and intimidation ,we are against him, and these people present themselves as Security men in civilian clothes, and they practice the law with thuggery, and they prevent anyone from expressing his opinion, and when I said disrespectful thug people, because it was a conversation