The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant served as an employee in E (former Trade Name F’) operated by the victim D (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) located in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City from around August 2013 to March 31, 2016; (b) the Defendant had seeed the statement that he would be retired from the victim on March 31, 2016, and had the victim undergo assault; (c) the G Hospital Health Examination Center of the G Hospital, the main customer of the victim, provided the victim with the right to food, and had the victim undergo a false civil complaint on the said store.

On April 6, 2016, at around 15:23, 2016, the Defendant sent a phone to the G Hospital health checkup center in his/her own residence, and completed its work to I, an employee of the G Hospital, who was an employee of the G Hospital, as he/she was the “J” upon which he/she had received a medical examination at the said hospital. As such, the Defendant pretended that “J, who was receiving a medical examination at the hospital, was seated in the table No. 8 table of F restaurant and then re-written his/her side.”

The head of food has come from the home, and the home country has been a hand, and the family has a right to file a return again.

The phrase “not only once” was called “not more than once.

Accordingly, the defendant spreads false facts and interfered with the victim's restaurant business.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “disseminating false facts” does not necessarily mean that basic facts are false. Although basic facts include cases where there is a risk of interference with another’s business by adding false facts to a considerable extent even if they are true, it does not constitute a case where an essential part is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the content, and it does not constitute a case where there is a little difference in detailed contents or a little exaggerated expression and thus there is no risk of interference with another’s business (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1580, Sept. 8, 2006). Meanwhile, the burden of proof for criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial.