The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The gist of the facts charged was that the Defendant: (a) at the cell phone store of “G” operated by F, the seat of the victim in the Haban-gun E, Haban-gun in order to borrow money from the victim D, F, together with the bond business operator.

1. At around 10:30 on September 6, 2016, the Defendant: (a) in the above mobile phone store; (b) in F’s refusal to see that the Defendant was only a cell phone; and (c) in F’s refusal to see that the Defendant was only a cell phone, the Defendant was seated in

걔는 신용 불량자고 월세로 사니까 돈 못 받는다, 빌려주지 마라, H 마트에서 왔다 하면 안다" 는 내용의 말을 하였다.

2. On September 7, 2016, the Defendant made a statement to F that “A person who has suspended prosecution for that year, was guilty, and was guilty,” at the same place as in the same time.

As a result, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out facts two times.

2. Determination

A. As evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, F’s investigative agency and the victim’s investigative agency and the victim’s statement to the effect that the Defendant took the words such as the entries in the facts charged, and that the said words were transferred from F, there are statements in this court.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor was proven without reasonable doubt as to the Defendant’s injury to the victim’s reputation by the same remarks as indicated in the facts charged.

It is difficult to see it.

1) At the time and place specified in paragraph 1 of the facts charged in the police, the Defendant stated that “I want to see that the Defendant was only one year, and there was no reason to do so without the Defendant. I would not be free from lending money, and would not be free from lending money.” On the following day, F would be “a person to suspend indictment.” The victim was aware of the fact that the Defendant was unable to s/he was s/she and was s/he was s/shed with the victim even though he/she did not express the fact that he/she was s/she was satis.”