A. Even if the Defendant is not a full term of a foul waste collection and transportation company in B-gu, the Defendant may sufficiently specify the victim of defamation in consideration of the number of foul waste collection and transportation companies permitted and registered in B-Gu, the scale of individual companies, etc.

In addition, the court below judged that the victims as stated in the indictment are individuals operating each septic tank, and it is difficult to conclude that defamation against the corporation constitutes defamation against the individual representative operating the corporation. However, in the case of the damaged corporation, it is stated that the corporation itself is the victim, and in the case of the remaining individuals, the representative bears the legal responsibility for the acts done in the name of the corporation because it is not recognized as a separate legal person for the company itself, it is not reasonable to determine that the victims are separate from the individual corporation as the objects of defamation damage.

B. In order to be deemed that the Defendant believed that the draft audit report prepared by S Inspector of the Office for Government Policy Coordination (hereinafter “the draft audit report of this case”) was true and made a statement of the content of the instant defamation, the Defendant must indicate the same content as the facts charged after obtaining the draft audit report of this case. Even if the Defendant had repeated statements of the same content as the instant case before receiving the draft audit report of this case, it is difficult to view that the Defendant newly obtained the draft audit report of this case separate from the Defendant’s existing crime and made a false statement of defamation without any false perception.

Even if the Defendant believed the draft of the audit report of this case and publicly stated the same content as the facts charged, the Defendant is not a final report.