The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On April 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) from the E office located on the second floor of the Mangyang-gu D Building in Ansan-gu, Anyang-gu; (b) the victim F retired from the above E to the competing certification body and the certified company managed by the victim changed the certification body according to the victim; and (c) the victim has induced or solicited the certified company he was under his jurisdiction to convert the victim to another certification body; (b) although the victim had not induced or solicited the certified company he had been under his jurisdiction to convert it to the other certification body, the F Review Board confirmed that he had continuously induced or recommended the certified company he had been under his control to convert it to the other certification body; and (c) by sending it by mail or by e-mail to approximately 37 certified companies, including G companies, the victim was in charge, thereby impairing the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts.

2. According to F’s statement among the prosecutor’s protocol of suspect interrogation (in the presence of the complainant) and the investigation report (in the case of the submission of a recording file) against the defendant, it can be acknowledged that the victim made a statement to the effect that the victim should convert the authentication body to the company that he/she had examined after the withdrawal from E. In light of this, it is insufficient to view that the witness H’s legal statement, F’s statement, the police statement, the investigation report (in the case of the authentication company’s counter-investigation), and the investigation result report (comprehensive) were false statements against objective truth. There is no evidence otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be recognized as defamation of Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, and only defamation of Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act can be established.

Furthermore, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, the work of the certification body, is public nature based on the provisions of the Quality Control and Safety Management of Industrial Products Act.