The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was the chairperson of the “D trade union” established around October 15, 2015 (hereinafter “D trade union”). The victim “E trade union” (hereinafter “E trade union”) was a single trade union within the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) established on November 26, 2003 under the overall jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea and was established on November 26, 2003 and was established on the basis of the said “D trade union.”

On September 7, 2016, the Defendant sent a text message to the effect that “A company did not comply with the legal procedures for the simplification of representative bargaining labor union windows” to approximately 8,928 employees E, a company did not follow the legal procedures for the simplification of representative bargaining labor union windows in Korea, and that there was no notice such as the fact or final public notice of the demand for bargaining on the part of the company for the past several years, and that the Korean labor union union did not comply with the legal procedures.”

However, the above victim trade union as a representative trade union from around 201 to around 2015 was a request for negotiations to enter into an organization agreement every two years from around 2011 to around 2015 on the side of the company, and the company also posted a final announcement thereof.

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

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is based on evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest (Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9890 Decided February 12, 2009). B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor alone is false.