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

1. On April 2015, the Defendant: (a) was guilty of having a relationship with the victim E; (b) at a public parking lot located in the Shin-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong.

A large number of divings are sleeps after heed.

Even though he saw, he saw several times.

If you want to do so, I would like to contact.

“.......”

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the honor of the victim E (the age of 30) by openly pointing out facts.

2. Determination

A. In this case, there are the F's legal statements, F's prosecutor's statements about F and the second police's statements about D as evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case.

Since D has consistently stated to the effect that it denies the facts charged from the prosecution to this court, it is difficult to believe that D’s second police statement protocol on D is the same.

Ultimately, F's statement is the only evidence.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is insufficient to recognize that the F’s statement alone, as stated in the facts charged, has damaged the victim’s reputation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① In light of the F and the victim’s Kakao Stockholm conversation, F cannot be ruled out the possibility that F would have neglected the circumstances, i.e., “I” or “I am spared to many people.”