The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around 12:00 on July 2, 2012, the Defendant stated the summary of the facts charged as follows: (a) at the (ju) D office located in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2nd floor C2, the office door was opened, and the time of occupation is coming to and going by people, the victim E, an employee of the said company, “the F president was posted a video screen at the seat of the F president.”

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant did not have a public performance, as he stated in the facts charged at a two offices with the victim.

Public performance refers to the state in which the defendant and the victim are unspecified or many other unspecified persons than the victim in the crime of defamation. As such, the act of the defendant expressing personal facts against the victim cannot be deemed public performance, and the victim should be identified to the extent that the victim can be identified through the fact that the crime of defamation itself is publicly known.

According to the records, it is recognized that the defendant was inside the office with which he was the victim, such as the facts charged, and even if there was a door of the office at the time of the instant case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that another group was actually in fact outside the office.

It is insufficient to conclude that the content was a situation where it can be identified, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, even if a group outside the office could accurately identify the contents of the statement of the defendant, the contents of the statement that the defendant heard outside the office do not confirm that the defendant made the statement against the victim, unless entering the office and confirming that the statement was made against the victim.