A. Defendant 1) The fact that the Defendant, on June 6, 2018, sent a written accusation (hereinafter “instant accusation”) to another person on or around June 6, 2018 is not a written accusation that “Defendant 1, a police officer’s life in the region, who had been a police officer for at least 20 years, filed a regular accusation against Defendant 1, a police officer’s current head of the Gun E at the time, to an investigative agency.”

Whether or not the delivery recipient of the instant accusation has believed the content of the accusation is determined depending on what person S who is the complainants, and whether it is a formal receipt, and the delivery of the accused does not strengthen the trust of the people in the content of the accusation. Therefore, the Defendant’s disclosure of the content of the accusation cannot be deemed to have been made public.

If the defendant exercised any influence on the credibility of the content of the instant accusation at the time of delivery of the instant accusation, it may be deemed that the content is published, but there is no proof as to that point.

Ultimately, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have published the content of the instant accusation.

B. Even if the Defendant publicly announced the content of the instant accusation, the core of the content of the instant accusation does not “E provided field trips with private expenses or personal expenses,” but rather, “E provided field trip expenses to G as the head of the instant Gun, irrespective of the absence of the budget of the Gun.”

Therefore, it should be determined on the basis of whether the latter's major contents are consistent with objective facts.

However, the part that the G Chairperson stated to the effect that “Neman has become an individual helpless of the B-Gun budget” is consistent with the fact, and that E did not raise any objection to T’s above speech, and there are various circumstances that make the members look at the unreasonable support of field expenses to G.