The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

The Defendant of the facts charged in this case is a person who is engaged in news gathering as a vice-director of the D press society and a vice-director of the D press society with its head office in Daejeon, which is located in the Daejeon-gu building B building C.

Around 10:00 on November 1, 2017, the Defendant posted a false article stating that “G” under the title of “G” on the face of the Korea Press Foundation on November 2, 2017, for the purpose of slandering F, which is the director of the E Press Foundation, within the building No. 2, which is the said D Press Office, with a view to slandering F, which is the director of the E Press Foundation, which is not good reputation. On November 1, 2017, the executive H who belongs to the Press Foundation, posted a false article stating that “The executives who are in the D Press Foundation, once he was in fact operated by his family, she sold 500 copies of the Internet and daily newspapers to the members of the Si and its neighboring areas by openly pointing out false facts.”

In order to establish defamation by publication, etc. under Article 309(2) of the former Criminal Code, the statement of facts should be false, and the criminal should be aware that such facts are false, and the criminal's perception of false facts, namely, the burden of proof for the criminal's intent, is the prosecutor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2186, Oct. 28, 1994). In determining whether a publicly alleged fact is false, in a case where an essential part is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the publicly alleged fact, if the material part is consistent with objective facts, there is a little difference between the truth and the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression.

Even if it is not a false fact, it cannot be viewed as false fact.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do4757 delivered on February 25, 2000, etc.). The complainant's family member from the police to this court stated that the complainant's family member did not operate the above drinking house. The above statement is a major evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case, and the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the record, are, i.e., the wife's wife, the above drinking house.