2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is a person serving in the office of law, and the Defendant is a media company operating a “B” online newspaper site (C).

On May 9, 2016, the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender a part of the body approaching the 20 Japanese women who had danced in the clubs located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F on May 8, 2016, as the title "E".

The article hereinafter referred to as "the article of this case" is the article of this case.

(2) The lower court rendered a judgment on June 15, 2017, on the Internet newspaper site No. 2010, on the grounds that it is difficult for the lower court to believe the statement of the victimized female on December 29, 2016. Although the prosecutor appealed against the foregoing, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on June 15, 2017 in the instant case, which is the appellate court, on the following grounds: (a) there is no dispute with the lower court; (b) there is no evidence of 1, 2015, 200 Japan; and (c) the Plaintiff was indicted as an indecent act by force against sexually indecent act (D Headquarters General Military Court No. 2016Da8); and (d) the first instance court rendered a judgment on the dismissal of the appeal.

The gist of the plaintiff's assertion and the purport of the whole argument is as follows: (a) in the article of this case, the defendant reported each of the following false facts: (b) "A military police officer's opinion to prosecute the plaintiff's sexual indecent act in excess of the military prosecutor's office"; (c) "the plaintiff was arrested in the act of committing an act of committing an offense against the victim's sexual intercourse"; and (d) "the police assigned the plaintiff's sexual indecent act to the military police unit on September 13, 2017, the plaintiff stated that only the above part ①, ② as false facts on the date of pleading on September 13, 2017, but the plaintiff stated that the above part ③ as additional false facts in the preparatory document dated October 31, 2017, the plaintiff's assertion that the above part was also false. Therefore, the plaintiff's above part (i), (ii) and

In fact, at the time of the report of the article of this case, the police did not have any opinion on prosecution.