신용훼손
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged was a person who was working as the head of the business of the victim C, a corporation operated by the victim C, and thereby, damaged the victim’s credit by spreading a false fact to the F of “E” and G, which is the business partner of D, a corporation, for the reason that C does not make payment to the business partner of D, at a non-permanent place on July 2, 2012.
2. The evidence proving the facts charged in the instant case lies in the statement of each police interrogation protocol against the Defendant that the victim took the head of the Tong and asked the client to pay the price, and the witness H and C’s each legal statement to the effect that the Defendant took the above facts to F.
First, as long as the defendant denies the contents of each police interrogation protocol against the defendant, it cannot be admitted as evidence as evidence.
(1) The defendant's testimony at each court by the witness H and C, stating that "the defendant she saw the victim as a juristic person head of the Tong and went to the business place," and that the payment of the price is delayed because the victim does not contact with the victim." The defendant's testimony at each court by the witness H and C, stating that "the defendant saw the victim to go to the court by taking the head of the Tong as a juristic person," is inadmissible as long as the defendant, as a statement by the person making the original statement, was made in this court and the statement on the contents of the conversation with the defendant, it is not admissible.
On the other hand, the witness F stated that the witness F was present as a witness in this court without memory as to whether the defendant had the victim go to the witness who had the head of the Tong to the corporation, and that he did not memory to H while communicating with H. Thus, the above witness F’s statement alone is sufficient to recognize the facts charged in this case.