The defendant shall be innocent.

On October 2012, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, at the early East Sea (hereinafter “E”), damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts by publicly pointing out the following facts: “The Defendant, even though there was no money to receive from the victim E, he does not have to pay the money of KRW 5,000,000,00,000, in spite of the absence of any money to receive from the victim E.”

Defendant

The summary of the argument is that the Defendant did not state the same words as the facts charged to F, etc. at the time and time stated in the facts charged.

Judgment

The direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case is not only the F's statement at the investigation agency and court, but also the F's statement. The issue in this case is whether the F's statement is credibility.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this case: ① At the time of the first investigation by the police, F testified that the Defendant did not make a statement as stated in the facts charged; ② at the time of the second investigation by the police, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant sent the Defendant’s speech to E two to three days after the end of 2 to the end of 3,00,000 in the place of customer three or four in the time when the Defendant and E talked with the Defendant’s complaint at Dda around October 16:0, 2012; ② at the time of the second investigation by the police, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant did not make a statement as stated in the facts charged,” and that “The Defendant did not make a statement in the process of making a statement as to whether the Defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged,” and that the Defendant did not appear to have made a visit during the process of making a statement to the effect that “EF and the Defendant’s statement in the process of making a visit to the police.”