The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The defendant in the factory room is a person who is engaged in the distribution business under the trade name of C.

1. On June 2014, the Defendant stated that “G and H will bring about fraud by releasing the construction cost,” to F in the Eart in which many employees, such as the above employee F, etc., exist in the Changwon-si, Changwon-si D apartment, Changwon-si, Changwon-si.

However, in fact, G did not bring about fraud by releasing the construction cost of H and construction in connection with the construction of the restaurant that the complainant decided with the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the reputation of G and H by openly pointing out false facts.

2. On July 1, 2014, the Defendant stated that “G and construction business operator H will bring about fraud by releasing the construction cost,” on the part of the staff, such as I, who was scheduled to work as a kitchen chief at a public restaurant in the same manner as the complainant in the same manner as the above paragraph (a).”

However, in fact, G did not bring about fraud by releasing the construction cost of H and construction in connection with the construction of the restaurant that the complainant decided with the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the reputation of G and H by openly pointing out false facts.

Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 312(2) and 307(2) of the Criminal Act (Withdrawal of Victim’s Declaration of Intention to punish) of the Reasons for Rejection of Public Prosecution