The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The facts charged are as follows: (a) the victim E was living in the high-class apartment located in Busan Shipping Daegu F, or had a mixed foreign capital, along with the third denial of the victim E’s drinking place from the drinking house; (b) the Defendant had a transactional relationship with the victim on February 21, 2013 at the Fed Fed F in Busan, around 11:00 on February 21, 2013.

G, "E currently lives together with the 3th denial on the high-class apartment of the Busan F 4.5 million won, and the 3th denial is a woman of 27 years old from the drinking house, and I know that it is a woman of 3 years old from the drinking house.

"...." On the same day, around 15:00 Busan Metropolitan Maritime Transportation Daegu, the 2nd smoking room in the 15:0 Busan Metropolitan Maritime Transportation Daegu, referred the above G to the above G, thereby undermining the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

2. Although the Defendant was aware of G, the Defendant asserts that G did not make any such statement as stated in the facts charged.

Defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged;

There are ① statements in the investigative agency of the complainant, ② statements in G court and in the investigative agency.

However, the statement of the complainant is merely a fact that he knows that he knows from G and H, and the part of the statement of the defendant that he was made from G and H included in the statement of the complainant constitutes a so-called re-professional statement and thus inadmissible as evidence.

On the other hand, there is no direct content to prove the facts supporting H’s statement and investigation report. Rather, around August to September 2013, 2013 to around September 9, 2013, H did not know the Defendant. There is only a fact that H did not know the Defendant.

Next, it is difficult to believe that G's statement in the court and investigative agency was made in view of the fact that witness I (police officers) and J appeared in this court and stated its contents inconsistent with G, and the relationship between complainants and G.

B. Along with the other evidence submitted by a prosecutor, the defendant is G.