A. In light of the contents that the Defendants reported to the media, in light of the contents of E’s statement as a witness of the relevant case and the contents of E’s statement, the recording of the remaining parts of E, and the method of writing (attached Form 2), etc., the Defendants believed that even if false, they were to be true.

B. The DNA Counseling Support Center (hereinafter referred to as the “Center”) is a public entity that is supported by the State’s budget that performs counseling, education, emergency rescue and support functions for crisis D, and the Defendants’ act of seeking to correct inappropriate days arising within such a public entity is for public interest, and thus, there was no purpose of slandering.

C. The contents reported to the media of this case are identified and confirmed by reporters, and thus cannot be deemed as false, and it cannot be deemed as guilty solely with the provision of raw materials of such articles.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion that the contents indicated in a document are true or at least true facts) in order to constitute defamation by a false statement, the criminal must publicly indicate the fact, and should have been aware that the alleged facts are harmful to people’s social evaluation, and should have been false. In determining whether the alleged facts are false or not, if the material part is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the alleged facts, it cannot be viewed as false facts even if there is a little exaggerated expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1538, Jun. 1, 2007).