The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant is a reporter of C, a business entity, such as Internet newspapers operating C’s website (D).

No person shall conceal any false fact through an information and communications network with intent to defame any other person, and damage the reputation of any other person.

Around April 16:21, 2017, the Defendant, on the website of the above C Internet homepage, did not have any violation of the relevant laws and regulations since it was possible to lend a loan even prior to approval of the implementation plan for the F Harbor redevelopment project implemented by the victim E corporation. However, under the title of “G”, the Defendant sent e, prior to the approval of the implementation plan for the project, who was a public-private partnership project operator of the F Redevelopment project at the time, carried the sea on the land and carried the sea on the land and borrowed the loan to the Mz securities.

The fact that the loan had been made before approval was actually accepted.

In particular, E has violated the Act on the Management and Reclamation of Public Waters (Public Waters) in the course of obtaining a loan by using F before approval after the approval of the implementation plan.

It was confirmed that a loan of KRW 6.5 billion was received through a security to trust a trustee with a purchase price payment claim and a right incidental thereto held by a purchaser.

It is revealed as a security loan on real rights other than the PF loan.

F. The agreement with the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries with the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries is clearly approved and stated that the project will proceed after the implementation plan is approved.

The business operator himself/herself posted a false article stating that it is possible to cancel the business according to the Harbor Act.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts through information and communications networks.

2. The facts charged in the instant case constitute a crime falling under Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc., and the victim under Article 70(3) of the said Act.