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

1. The summary of the facts charged is the president of the Korea Saemaul Bank.

On February 29, 2012, the Defendant: (a) heard 10 persons, such as F, G, H, and auditor I, who are directors in the D Saemaul Depository second floor room in E on February 29, 2012; (b) the victim J (the age of 42) was the regular manager of the said community credit cooperatives, and thereby, damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts.

2. On the other hand, the facts charged in the instant case revealed that the victim’s reputation was harmed by the Defendant’s remarks. As such, the victim of the instant facts charged is specified only JJ, and the prosecutor also stated that the defamation part against K was not prosecuted through his written opinion dated July 23, 2013.

(5) We examine whether the Defendant’s speaking constitutes a crime of defamation against the J.

The crime of defamation requires a statement of a specific fact by the victim, but it does not necessarily require a statement of fact by specifying a person’s name. Thus, if a statement of fact without a person’s name can be identified in light of the surrounding circumstances and the overall assessment of the contents of the expression, the crime of defamation against the specific person constitutes the crime of defamation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 82Do1256 delivered on November 9, 1982, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant did not conclude that the name of the victimJ was specified and that the Defendant was in in a non-humane relationship with K, as stated in the facts charged. However, it was true that the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “M residing in L was in a non-humane relationship with K,” and that “M was in a non-humane relationship with K. M and the non-humane relationship was caused by the family imprisonism, and that the four children (3, 1) were in the mind and body of mind, and the four children (3, 1, South and 1) committed assault at K O apartment.” This date, however, the Defendant argued that “N was in a non-human relationship with K, but failed to receive a written statement,” as stated in