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

On November 201, 201, the Defendant stated that “GC’s allowances for FC of FC, which may not be properly known, are equivalent to GC’s allowance,” while introducing the daily work at the time when he/she worked with the victim G (or the age of 44) from the aforementioned reporter, who was posted news gathering from the Defendant to the “E” news report in the “D” restaurant located in the Geman-si, Gyeonggi-si, the Government of the Republic of Korea.

However, at the time, the defendant was paid an amount equivalent to 70% of the insurance inducement amount by the victim as an allowance, and there was no fact that he was paid an allowance by applying 65% of the FC fee rate (general insurance solicitor).

As a result, the defendant openly damaged the reputation of the victim by pointing out false facts.

Judgment

A. First, according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the defendant stated that "GC and Igman's fC allowances that may not be properly known to the defendant," and that "Igman's fC allowances are "Igman's fC allowances that may not be properly known to the defendant," and that according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the defendant, in the course of conducting an interview with F who is a reporter at the time of distribution, "Ige at the time of distribution, Iget 65% or 70% or less at the time of distribution," and operated (m) Ign't know that "Ign't know about the fact that Igman's 70% of the total 70% of the total 70% of the 70% of the 70% of the 70% of the 70% of the cyman's son's son's son's son's son's son's fee."

B. The defendant, at the time of dividend, has a table, 65%, or 70%, at the time of dividend.

(b) Sheet.