The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the complainant actually received KRW 10 million from the side of the F. F. Motor Vehicle Maintenance Factory; and (b) even if the Defendant made a statement against the complainant as stated in the facts charged of this case, it does not defame the complainant by pointing out false facts.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of defamation or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the crime of defamation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a taxi engineer under the private taxi C branch.

On January 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) told the president of the former branch office E from the former head of the D office that “F Motor Vehicle Maintenance Work site, the head of the FF Motor Vehicle Maintenance Work site, and the 10 million won, which was used in the form of office, were known; (b) however, there was no fact that the Defendant was at all identified on the part of the victim GBF Motor Vehicle Maintenance Work Site, the head of the present branch, in order to verify the authenticity of the fact.

On March 6, 2014, at around 11:00, H members and family members under the private taxi branch C of the private taxi branch of the si, are microphones within the bus that was on board the bus in order to go through the Ga mountain mountain, and the victim G, and “I, F vehicle maintenance plant, if it is clearly disclosed that 10 million won was received from the G head, F vehicle maintenance plant,” and damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts on the job with 40 people, such as members I, J and his family members.

B. As to the judgment of the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by integrating the evidence in its judgment.

(c)

However, the above determination by the court below is not acceptable for the following reasons.

1) In determining whether the alleged facts are false in order to apply Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, where an essential part is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the alleged facts.