The Defendants, not guilty, disclose the summary of this judgment as to Defendant B.

1. A factory laboratory;

A. Defendant B - The Defendant posted defamation at around 13:00 on September 2016, at around the victim F’s G at the seat of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Kabbook “E”.

H and 10 customers are heard, and the victim “F is an applicant for personal rehabilitation.”

The reputation of the victim was damaged by openly pointing out a fact on theme of the bad credit.

B. Defendant A- The Defendant openly insulting the victim by openly referring to the victim as “the same flickt flick flick,” among the victim’s 10 visitors, at the time, place, and place indicated in paragraph (1).

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt 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, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest as evidence of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261, Nov. 10, 201).

① In addition to the end of the instant facts charged from the investigative agency to the instant court, the victim F stated to the effect that “Defendant B had cancelled the G’s workplace at the date and place indicated in the instant facts charged,” the victim F made a statement to the effect that he had undermined his reputation, and that the initial facts charged by the prosecution were included in the said part of the facts charged that “the place of business was cancelled.”

However, according to the materials submitted by the Defendants, G Co., Ltd. on October 31, 2016.