beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that Defendant B is the vice-chairperson of the D apartment occupant council at Bju City, and Defendant A is the head of the above apartment management office.
Defendant
B
A. On May 2012, the Defendant’s statement that the victim E is the sect of the culpian construction among the persons who had several occupants of the apartment at the front of the above apartment management office around the first half of the first half of the year.
B. On July 1, 2012, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts. B. On July 10, 2012, the Defendant heard by H et al. before G University Sports Officers of G University located in F of G University at L, who read “EC” to the victim E, thereby openly pointing out false facts by publicly pointing out that “EC is the Switzerland of the Corop Corporation.” On January 10:20, 2013, Defendant A, at the aforesaid apartment management office, listens to several occupants, including I, J, and H, while the Defendant listened to the foregoing apartment management office, “EE is the sect of the Koop Corporation.”
In addition, it is not necessary to see CCTVs in the underground parking lot so that it can see clothes.
"The reputation of the victim was damaged by openly pointing out false facts."
2. Determination and conclusion
A. The crime of defamation requires a “statement of fact” in order to establish the crime of defamation, and the alleged facts should thereby lead to the possibility of infringing a person’s social value or evaluation.
(Supreme Court Decision 94Do1770 delivered on October 25, 1994). B
Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted by this court and duly examined by the court, it is recognized that the Defendants told that they “the victim is the sect of the Corde Corporation” as stated in the facts charged, but it is merely an indication of value judgment, and it does not constitute a statement of specific facts.
C. In addition, the fact that Defendant A said that “CCTV is not required to be sleeped in the underground parking lot because she seen “CCTV”.