The accused shall announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. The Defendant, on May 2016, injured the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out the fact that “B is the cutting-out of intelligence,” and “B goes to her house near the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E around May 2017,” which read that “B is the cutting-out of intelligence and went to her house.”

2. The judgment of the defendant denies the crime from the investigative agency to this court (as to the recording (No. 10 of the evidence list), it appears that the defendant stated the same remarks as the recorded in the facts charged, but it is not recognized that the defendant made such remarks at the time and place of the charge, but recognized that "the defendant made such remarks at the time and place of the charge before 10 years" (see, e.g., page 39 of the evidence record). There is each statement of the victim, D, and F as evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this part. However, the victim's statement is merely that the victim made such remarks from D or F, and it is difficult to believe that the victim's statement was made as it is, as seen below, as seen below.

A. D submitted a factual confirmation that corresponds to the facts charged on or around October 30, 2017. On November 15, 2017, D made a statement to the same effect at the telephone conversation with a police investigator (Evidence No. 32 pages of the evidence record) and made a statement to the same effect as a witness at the trial. However, it is inconsistent with the following: (i) “as of May 1, 2016” and “as of May 2017,” and “as of May 17, 2017,” (ii) in telephone conversations with a police investigator, the police investigator made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant was willing to join the senior citizen’s center, but the victim opposed this,” but the Defendant’s defense counsel pointed out that “G had already entered the center of senior citizens on December 17, 2015,” and did not explain it.