The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, around June 12, 2017, at the “C” agency operated by the Defendant located in the Gu, Si, Si, Gu, and the Defendant submitted a resume in order to be employed as an employee in C with the introduction of the victim as a member of the victim D, and that he/she made a phone call to E who does not have any particular relationship with the Defendant and paid off the mobile phone at D stores.

In a easy sense, embezzlement of public funds was made.

D. The same shall apply to this time.

The victim’s reputation was damaged by openly pointing out facts to the purport that “Sarih L.” was a harsh lending of money.

2. Where defamation by a statement of fact is true and solely for the public interest, it cannot be punished (Article 310 of the Criminal Act). Here, “the time when the public interest is solely for the public interest” includes not only the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also matters relating to community life, even for a specific social group (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do3160, Jun. 22, 1993; 2006Do2074, Dec. 14, 2007). According to the records, D was indicted for embezzlement by a voluntary sale of cellular phone stored by D for the Defendant ( Daegu District Court Decision 2017DaDa186565, Sept. 17, 2017). The Defendant demanded compensation for damages against D when he/she came to know of D’s embezzlement, and the Defendant was tried to use D’s escape on the day of the instant case.

It is recognized that E made a speech such as the statement in the facts charged by telephone.

In light of the above facts, the defendant was aware of D's embezzlement in the process of examining the whereabouts of D who committed the crime of occupational embezzlement and preventing him from preparing the escape cost from E.