However, in considering the evidence of the Public Prosecution, it was not proven that the appellant issued any statement or act prejudicial to any official entity and/or any official body or institution until the text of the aforementioned article condemned and sentenced accordingly and alternately. Even if what the Public Prosecution attributed to the appellant is correct, freedom of opinion and expression is guaranteed to every person to say what he wants and to express what is going on within him within the limits of the law. On the failed assumption that what is attributed to the appellant is true, as the Public Prosecution did not prove that the appellant abused by saying or doing against the institutions of power and / or broadcasting that among the people until he was convicted of this charge. (5) The Magistrate Court erred in its judgment to convict the appellant and justified that by saying, as stated in the Court’s judgment, “This incident is proven through the evidence reviewed above, as it was mentioned in the highlights n/2, which contains an order to access the accused’s private devices issued by the Public Prosecution in 23/8/22020 until the extraction of all the evidence proving the charges against him. As it was stated through the extracts that the accused sent a message denouncing the Security Services and describing them as “Screw them and their Security services. Such thugs, disrespectful people.” The conciliation was not successful in interpreting the text of the aforementioned article and applying the elements of the crime attributed to the appellant. The Court did not prove that the appellant had broadcasted that among the people, as it assumes its validity, it was just a private conversation between two people as it was stated in the Court’s judgment at the beginning of the fifth page that the aforementioned accused, dated in 28/7/2020. During a conversation on Facebook with a person called Nassim, the accused described the security men as thugs and cursed them with the words: “Screw them and their Security Services. Such thugs, disrespectful people.” Since the Court’s judgment, the subject of this appeal, was not based on any legal basis in this reasoning, as the text of Article 45 of the Cybercrime Law, Article 191 Penalties No.16 of 1960, on which the court relied in issuing its ruling on the charge of slander against the Palestinian Authority, among the elements of the act attributed to the appellant does not fulfil the material element, and it has been proven through this incident, assuming its validity, that what was attributed to the appellant is about a private chat and was not mentioned to the public. (6) In turn, the Magistrates’ Court erred in its decision, the subject of this appeal, to convict the appellant in the part related to the third charge, as it did not properly asses the evidence until the conviction decision was issued, as none of the facts contained in the indictment were proven against the appellant in any way. (7) Alternately, the Nablus Magistrate Court erred in its decision on this appeal, since, by referring to the evidence of the Public Prosecution, your esteemed Court finds that what is attributed to the appellant, assuming its validity, are facts that occurred prior to the issuance of Decree Law No. 10 of 2018 regarding cybercrimes. The facts in respect of which the appellant was