The reputation was damaged by publicly spreading false facts, such as talking that “,” etc.

Judgment

1. The key issue of the instant case is the fact that the Defendant made a statement to G as described in the facts charged on July 14, 2017 at the drinking place where E and F are together, and the Defendant also recognized by evidence.

G on this issue, the meaning of the statement made by the defendant became the sexual relationship between the defendant and G.

The statute asserts that it is.

G from this point of view, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Defendant, and later made a statement to the same effect as the investigation by the investigative agency and the instant court.

The prosecutor also accepted the G's position and prosecuted the defendant as defamation, and presented the same opinion in the process of trial.

On the other hand, when the purport of the above speech was left by the defendant and his defense counsel, it is difficult to see and see the right to stay in G and H as it is.

It is argued that this would be why it would be a crime or why it would be a crime.

In other words, the horses do not mean sexual intercourse, and therefore they are not defamation.

Thus, the issue of this case is whether the words of the defendant have a sex relationship with the defendant or whether G has a sex relationship with the defendant or there is a deficit in water surface.

The question is whether or not there is a question.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a crime of defamation of relevant legal principles, a specific fact must be indicated that is likely to infringe on a specific person’s social value or evaluation. Whether an expression is defamation or not is the social norm of the expression.