Facts
The appellant [A.] had filed a criminal complaint against [X.] for defamation on May 24, 2016. The public prosecutor's office found [X.] guilty of multiple defamation by penal order of February 23, 2017. [X.] appealed against the penal order. The District Court of Willisau acquitted [X.] of the charge of defamation regarding the incidents of March 4, 2016, and May 19, 2016, by judgment of August 25, 2017. However, it found [X.] guilty of defamation committed on May 19, 2016, in [V.] . The Cantonal Court of Lucerne held in its judgment of July 11, 2018, that the first-instance acquittal of the charge of defamation committed on March 4, 2016, in [U.] , as well as the dismissal of the civil claims, had become final. Furthermore, it acquitted [X.] of the charges of defamation committed on May 19, 2016, in [U.] and [V.] .
The appellant [A.] requested that [X.] be found guilty of defamation committed on May 19, 2016, in [U.] , and punished accordingly, with costs and compensation to be borne by [X.] . Alternatively, the costs and compensation of [X.] for the investigation and first-instance proceedings should be borne by the state. Subordinately, the proceedings should be remanded to the lower court for supplementation and retrial.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the appeal of [A.] and came to the following conclusion: The appellant has no legally protected interest in the annulment or amendment of the contested decision, as the civil claims of the appellant were not specified in the first-instance proceedings and were therefore referred to the civil court pursuant to Art. 126 Abs. 2 lit. b CrimPC.
The complaint of the appellant that the lower court violated the principle of investigation and the principle of good faith is inadmissible, as it aims at a material review of the contested decision. The lower court summoned witness [C.] to the appeal hearing and drew his attention to the criminal consequences of…