The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, as the principal agent of the instant facts charged, sent two children to the “D Child Care Center” located in C from March 2009 to April 2012, and the victim E (F; hereinafter “E”) is the principal agent of the said child care center. The Defendant is the head of the said child care center. The said “D Child Care Center” (hereinafter “instant child care center”).

) Although the victim filed a complaint from G who had worked as the head of the monthly salary level, he had the intent to defame the victim by raising false information on the Internet bulletin board, etc. On September 19, 2012, the Defendant: (a) within his own residence located in the Internet portal site No. 102 803, the Defendant: (b) on September 19, 2012, on the Internet portal site, “The husband of the head of the D Child Care Center is a public official. The husband of the D Child Care Center has the strong power to decrease the son’s identity.” Until now, it is doubtful whether the D Child Care Center’s official’s attempt to process the illegal speculation of the D Child Care Center is not a preferential treatment to his family members; and (c) the head of the D Child Care Center has no interest in the act of denying the public official from doing so even if there is no illegality.”

A notice was posted.

However, in fact, although the husband of the victim is a public official, there is no fact that other public officials have given preferential treatment to the above childcare center, and there was no fact that other public officials have given preferential treatment to the above childcare center.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by divulging public false information through the information and communication network for the purpose of slandering the victim.

2. The facts alleged by the Defendant and the defense counsel are not false.