The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The Defendant, as a result of the difference between the victim and the victim’s opinion with respect to “E” operated by the victim D’s private animal care center, committed a dispute with respect to “E,” the Defendant was willing to post a false fact with respect to the Defendant’s Blols operated by the Defendant.

Around October 29, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the Defendant’s house located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu and 302; (b) in conducting a neutronic surgery in E, a veterinarian visiting E to take responsibility for sanitary management, such as disinfection, and (c) in fact a veterinarian G was carrying out an operation by carrying out a neutic surgery, but he was actually carrying out a neutic surgery by carrying out the operation equipment at his own computer, and (d) on the Blog operated by the Defendant using a computer at that place, the Defendant stated, “I and IF AD veterinary hospital: a neic surgery-related accident: a neutic surgery-related IF, IF, and IF, established an organization with a thickness of H in April 2012; and (vi) disclosed the victim’s reputation that he was negligent in managing the neutic surgery at the expense of the victim.”

나. 피고인은 2012. 11. 19.경 피고인의 집에서, 사실은 피해자가 E 동물들의 건강을 위하여 여름철에만 10일에 한 번 정도 사료를 주지 않고 있음에도, 그곳에 있는 컴퓨터를 이용하여 피고인이 운영하는 블로그에 “E 아이들의 먹거리, 하루에 한 번 먹는 뼈닭(1) : 그나마도 일주일에 이틀 정도는 굶음”이라는 제목으로 “E에서는 개들에게 먹거리로 하루에 한 번 생닭이 급여됩니다 (중략) E의 개들은 그나마 뼈닭도 보통 일주일에 두 번은 먹지 못합니다.”라는 내용의 글을 게시하여 마치 피해자가 E의 동물을 일...