The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The Defendant’s statement is about the illegal act of the victim, which does not include the honor of the victim protected by the Criminal Act, but did not have an intention of defamation.

2) Considering the relationship between the victim and F and whether the Defendant actually disseminated, performance cannot be recognized in the Defendant’s act.

3) As the Defendant informed F of the fact that the victimized person committed an act of demanding unfair economic benefits prohibited by the pertinent statute, and made the same remarks as the facts charged for the purpose of correction, the Defendant is dismissed as constituting a justifiable act under Article 310 of the Criminal Act or Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant is an executive director of C(State) who is a medical device public entity.

On June 2, 2016, the Defendant called F from the E Hospital located in Seo-gu, Busan, to the patch of the radiation species department belonging to the E Hospital located in Seo-gu, Busan. On June 2, 2016, the Defendant changed the victim G, who is a professor belonging to the same department, to the benz, and might do so once.

Note 2, “I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am

By stating that the Gu's friendship was ", thereby damaging the honor of the victim by openly pointing out facts."

B. The lower court found the FG’s statement and record in the investigative agency as evidence.

The Defendant consistently denied the charges by asserting the grounds for appeal from the investigative agency to the court.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot readily be readily concluded that the Defendant had a public performance on defamation or his/her speech, and even if a public performance is recognized, illegality is recognized.