The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the person who was the victim B and the past relationship with the victim B.

At around 20:00 on September 6, 2018, the Defendant referred the victim to the Defendant’s account (D) (hereinafter “C”), and “the issue was from the start.” At each time he saw, he she was flickly flickly flicked flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick, and flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick fl,” and he flick flick fld flick fld fld fl.

As a result, the Defendant’s crime of defamation under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act is established inasmuch as the term “facts” is not referred to as “defensive fact,” but rather, rather, the term “facts,” the content of which is a value judgment or evaluation,” and thus, the crime of defamation under Article 307(1) may be established either whether the alleged fact is true or false. In particular, even if the alleged fact is false, if the actor does not have awareness of the falsity, the crime of defamation under Article 307(1) is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18024, supra). It is difficult to see that the Defendant was aware of the falsity of the content of the above statement, thereby impairing the victim’s reputation by committing a crime of violating the Act on Promotion, etc. of Use of Information and Communications Network (Defamation) under Article 70(1) of the Act

2. The facts charged pertaining to the above determination are related to facilitating the use of information and communications networks and protecting information.