beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. In the facts charged, the Defendant is a new executive officer of Bocheon-Jin Park C.
At around 10:00 to 12:00 on September 21, 2016, the victim D, E, F, G, and H5 were members of I (hereinafter referred to as “I”), and there was an assembly to oppose the assignment of the PO (hereinafter referred to as “the assembly of this case”). Around 10:00 to 12:00, L, who is the interest of the principal of the JJ in front of the building of the JGG in the JGG in the JGG, the interest of the principal of the JG, K, for the principal of the JG.
On September 25, 2016, around 10:00 and around 15:00, the Defendant took part in the deceased’s sexual party in M M, and took part in the deceased’s religious party in M, and the Defendant took part in the instant I assembly before the deceased’s personal belief in name. “The Defendant received KRW 50,00 per day.”
However, the victims did not receive daily allowances for their voluntary participation in the demonstration.
Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the honor of victims by openly pointing out false facts.
2. Determination
A. The facts charged in a criminal trial must be proved by the prosecutor, and the judge should admit the defendant guilty with probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant should be determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10787, May 28, 2009). B. In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is acknowledged that the defendant stated in the facts charged in the charges, "the defendant receives 50,000 won per day," but it is also true that the defendant was "the defendant received 50,000 won per day," on the part of the participants in the I assembly of this case beyond the above facts charged, the defendant's statement in the victim D and part of the victim's telephone call investigation in the investigation agency (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10787, May 28, 2009).