The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the 11st team staff of the Gyeonggi Support Group of the Company B, and the victim C is the representative director of the Company B, and the victim D is the head of the Daegu Customer Headquarters of the Company B.

On October 18, 2017, the Defendant: (a) directed the employees who work in front of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Gwangju District District Office’s B Gwangju District Office to get the chairperson of the F Daegu Headquarters to be a candidate for the company; (b) finally, upon approval from the chairperson of the C C on October 8, 201, notified the results to the G management support office to be carried out; (c) the C Chairperson is responsible for the intervention in illegal election of union members; (d) the C Chairperson is responsible for the intervention in illegal election of union members; (e) the C Chairperson Company is released from the position of the head of the D headquarters, i.e., the head of the D Daegu Headquarters and distributed

However, in the election of the chairman of the Labor Relations Commission, the victims did not instruct the above G to commit an unfair act in order to defeat the F in the election of the chairman of the Labor Relations Commission or to make the F in the election.

Accordingly, the Defendant openly damaged the honor of victims by pointing out false facts as above.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish the crime of defamation by the statement of false facts, the defendant must be aware that the fact was false in the statement of false facts. The recognition of such false facts, namely, the burden of proof for the criminal intent, is the prosecutor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2186, Oct. 28, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 96Do2234, Feb. 14, 1997). Whether an actor knows that the matter was false by nature, it is difficult to know or prove such fact outside the country, and it is inevitable to determine by comprehensively taking into account various objective circumstances such as the defendant’s educational background, career, social status, timing of publication, and anticipated ripple effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do2234, Mar. 13, 2014).