The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the representative of the “C” D Company, and the victim E is an acting driver at a “F” acting driving company.

around 19:30 on June 19, 2013, the Defendant: (a) designated “cocks” at the “C office,” located under the “C,” which had access to the Internet substitute driving route program website; (b) designated “cocks” to the victim’s mobile phone number; and (c) designated the “cocks” in the column as “requesting KRW 100,000 from the wall to the Government via the wall page, and the article that caused the occurrence.” On August 29, 2013, the Defendant: (a) designated the “cocks” by accessing the above program site by the aforementioned method; and (b) openly insulting the victim in the column as seen above, and at the same time, interfered with the victim’s business by placing the “cocks” on the substitute driving channel website so that the victim may not receive a substitute driving vehicle by force.

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant posted the above writing to the employees of the Defendant company, and that there was no fact that the Defendant posted the above writing.

According to the evidence No. 4-1, the defendant ordered I, who is an employee of the defendant company, to walk "le", and the specific expression called "unborn articles" or "Habitual offender" should be acknowledged that the defendant did not directly put up a notice, but posted the notice to the employee of the defendant company. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant posted the above expression.

Even if the Defendant posted the above expression, the offense of insult falls under a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of interference with business is not by force, but by force.

In the offense of insult, the term “defluence” as referred to in the offense of insult may, without mentioning the facts, undermine people’s social evaluation.