The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged was posted on April 8, 2016, the title “D” on the bulletin board of the Internet portal site, and “D” that read, “The auditor neglected and prepares a false audit report.”

However, there was no false audit report by the auditor E or F of the union.

Accordingly, the defendant abused the honor of victims by disclosing any false information openly through the information and communication network for the purpose of slandering the people.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the assertion is consistent with the fact that the Defendant posted a letter (hereinafter “the instant text”) as described in the facts charged. However, since the major part of the timely facts is consistent with objective facts, there was no false fact or awareness of false facts, and there was no purpose of slandering E and F.

B. Determination 1) Since the facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial have the burden of proof, whether it is a subjective element or an objective element, the prosecutor must prove that there was a statement of the fact that the person’s social evaluation has been undermined in the case prosecuted for the crime of defamation by a statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, and that the alleged facts do not coincide with the objective truth, and that the defendant knew that the alleged facts were false, as well as that the alleged facts were false. In such a case, when determining whether the alleged facts are false, the prosecutor must examine the overall purport of the alleged facts. In a case where the material facts are consistent with the objective facts, there was a little difference or somewhat exaggerated expression in the detailed facts.

Even if so, it cannot be viewed as a false fact (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do13718, Sept. 4, 2014, etc.). This point is the same.