Around January 14, 2014, the Defendant: (a) prepared documents containing the contents of “D disciplinary case” under the title “D disciplinary case” at the F Center Office located in G, and sent them by mail to E, E, the nationwide chapter head of E, the head of Si, the head of Si, the head of Si, the head of Si, the public health clinic, the members of the H-gu public health clinic, family members, users of the facility, etc., by promoting documents without the appointment of the head of the center when they become the head of the center. (b) The Defendant, as the head of the facility, received the 1,3 million won wage by receiving the 10 million won wage from March 2009 to December 12, 2013 in the manner of receiving the 100 won wage from the method of receiving the 1,300 won wage from the facility site; and (3) the number of 100 F Center facilities was 75 persons to violate the conditions of the National Treasury subsidy.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out facts.

2. The act of damaging a person’s reputation by openly pointing out a fact may not be punished pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act if it is true and solely for the public interest. The term “the time when it comes to the public interest” refers to the public interest when objectively viewed the alleged fact, and an actor also ought to state the fact for the public interest subjectively. It includes not only the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a specific social group or its entire members. Whether the alleged fact concerns the public interest or not is compared with the overall circumstances regarding the expression itself, such as the content and nature of the alleged fact, the scope of the counter-party to which the publication of the relevant fact was made, the method of expression, etc., as well as the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression.