On November 2018, the Defendant sent D, a faculty type D and a telephone conversation using the said center, to E, referred to the victim, and “Is good before the C Center president filed a complaint that he/she had filed, all of which they filed a complaint, and the number of which they filed a complaint to be bad and unweeted to 19.” The Defendant sent D to E, a faculty type.

However, the victim did not file a complaint against the retired medical practitioner in addition to the defendant.

Nevertheless, the Defendant openly damaged the reputation of the victim by pointing out false facts as above.

2. The fact that the defendant and his defense counsel argued that "the complaint is the same as that of the first one, not the victim's complaint," while talking with D that "the defendant's assertion that the defendant had received a complaint from the victim." However, there is no fact that "the medical practitioner who retired good from the victim's inside is a person who is not bad and unreasy about about 19, upon all of the complaints," and even if so, it is not so.

Even if the victim did not specifically mention the contents, motive, circumstance, etc. of the complaint, it is difficult to deem that specific facts sufficient to infringe on the victim’s social value or evaluation have been publicly stated. The expression “a person who is bad and bad” is merely an opinion, and cannot be seen as a statement of fact, and thus, the crime of defamation is not established.

3. Determination

A. In order to establish the crime of defamation, a statement of fact must be made, and the alleged facts should thereby be made to the extent that the social value or assessment of a specific person might be infringed.

At this time, the statement of fact is an expression of opinion with the content of value judgment or evaluation.