The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. At around 09:09 on December 12, 201, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by openly insulting the victim on the ground that the victim D is broadcasting to the effect that “the apartment management fee is being erroneously executed” was “the apartment management fee is being executed.” under the influence of E, etc., a resident, who is a resident, in the state of microfication of broadcasting.

2. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial for judgment is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110 Decided February 11, 2003, etc.). The main evidence in line with the facts charged in the instant case, including witness D, E, F, G and H’s statutory statements, and each statement made to investigation agencies on them. The gist of the statement is that D broadcasts to the effect that “a apartment management fee is being erroneously executed” to the apartment residents by using microphones for broadcasting at the C apartment management office on December 12, 2011, while D broadcasts to the effect that “the apartment management fee is erroneously executed,” the Defendant was directly heard or broadcasted by the management office as stated in the facts charged.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in this court, namely, ① apartment resident, recorded D’s broadcast content at the time of the instant case in his house, which was at the time of the instant case, and according to this, the Defendant, who was employed to go to the management office of the Do, was to go to the Do.