At around 09:00 on March 7, 201, the Defendant did not seem to have shown that, in the form of insurance solicitors, such as E, in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C companies, the Defendant: (a) around 9:30 minutes per week; (b) around September 30, 2010, the Defendant entered the branch office of the C companies; (c) and (d) the head of the branch office FC personal interview into the branch office, and (c) the head of the branch office FC personal interview with the petitioner’s opinion, and (d) fC personal interview with his/her own hands, sleep, sleep, and playing with a very hot view (referring to that flicking.m.), there was no time to see that he/she did not want to do so; and (c) he/she made it too late to see that he/she did not want to do so; and (d) hereinafter, it appears that he/she did not want to have his/her sexual harassment before being distributed.

In fact, however, the defendant was at issue with the other branch of the C company and F, who was dissatisfied with the arbitration but was dissatisfied with the arbitration, and the civil litigation was conducted while the respondent was dissatisfied with the arbitration, the defendant prepared the above written petition and should make it out from the complainant.

There was no such words in relation to the smelling or smelling of flasing.

Nevertheless, the Defendant distributed the above printed matter to insurance solicitors, etc., thereby impairing the reputation of the complainant by openly pointing out false facts.

2. In a case prosecuted for the crime of defamation due to the assertion of false facts, that the alleged facts are not only false but also false facts because they are not consistent with the objective truth.