The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant is a member of the D organization located in Suwon-gu, Busan, and the victim E is a general director of the aforementioned D organization.

On November 23, 2016, the Defendant was subject to disciplinary action on the grounds that “the recorded files in which personal conversations between members are stored” from the enforcement book of the above D organization, and the Defendant was able to inform the executive book and members of the said D organization of the recording files, as the victim had distributed the recorded files.

On November 27, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the Defendant’s residence located in Suwon-gu, Busan-gu; (b) there was no fact that the injured party openly discovered the privacy of the members of the said D Association or distributed the said recording file; (c) on the part of the executive organ of the said D Association, there was no fact that the injured party openly extracted the privacy of each of the members of the D Association; and (d) there was no fact that the damaged

E가 허위사실 유포와 사우들의 사생활을 공공연히 발설한 장본인 임을 밝힙니다.

By sending text messages containing the contents of “,” etc., the victim’s reputation was damaged by openly pointing out false information.

2. The Defendant’s assertion is not false, but rather it was pointed out that the Defendant’s sending of the above text message is unreasonable, and there was no intention of defamation, as it was intended to point out that the Defendant’s sending of the above text message was unjust.

3. Determination

A. Since the facts constituting the elements of the crime charged in a criminal trial are subject to the prosecutor’s burden of proof, whether it is a subjective requirement or an objective requirement, the prosecutor must prove that there was a statement of the fact that the person’s social evaluation was depreciated in the case prosecuted for the crime of defamation by a statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, and that the alleged facts are not consistent with the objective truth, and that the defendants knew that they were false and stated that they were false facts.