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

1. The Defendant and the victim F of the instant facts charged are in dispute over land boundary issues, and the Defendant filed a complaint with the victim as an intrusion on the boundary, and the victim requested formal trial upon receiving a summary order of a fine of KRW 2 million on May 25, 2016, and received a judgment of not guilty on January 15, 2017.

On June 29, 2016, the Defendant mentioned the victim in Gela located in Gela, and in the space of the members, such as I, J, and K attending H church, and entered the H church, and “F erroneously imposed a fine of KRW 2 million,000,000,000,000,000,000 won in the lawsuit, and both, were in favor of the Defendant.

“.....”

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out facts.

2. Determination

A. Data submitted by the complainant (Evidence No. 20 No. 5 of the evidence list) that I copied the pocket in which the matters discussed by the Defendant was recorded on June 29, 2016, was inadmissible.

It is because the Defendant did not agree to this as evidence, there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the original copy on the record or its authenticity, and there is no reason provided for in Article 315 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do2613, Dec. 13, 1983). (b) In addition, considering the following circumstances revealed through one record and the relationship between F and I, the Defendant and I, and the relationship between K, K, and J, it is difficult to believe the I’s investigation stage, the statements in this Court, the K’s investigation stage, the statements in this Court, and the court statements in this Court, and the legal statements in J.

1) In full view of L’s legal statement, submission of documentary evidence (73 pages of investigation record), family relation certificates, removed copies, death certificates, funeral certificates, etc. attached to defense counsel’s written opinion, the Defendant appears to have attended on June 29, 2016, at the Gel located in the city where I, K, and J, the Defendant appeared to have been a funeral funeral hall in Gwangju Metropolitan City at the Defendant’s wife’s funeral on June 29, 2016, and attended the Defendant’s wife M’s funeral at the Gel located in the city of Gwangju.

2) I and K correspond to the facts charged at the investigation stage and in this Court.