The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is a business director of D Co., Ltd., Ltd., located in Full-Time C at the time of Jeonsan-gu.

On January 8, 2010, the Defendant complained against the Defendant by inputtingggle using a computer in the office of the above company, stating the truth under the title of “Ethical emblgglgglgglgglgglglglgglglglg,” which reads the fact. Some drivers who repeatedly embezzled transportation revenue of the only cause of import of the company, and repeatedly embezzled it in the course of performing their duties, do not seem to have any circumstances while denying it, and rather threaten our common base by using printed items different from the fact, such as the fact that the only cause of import of the company is in an unfair dismissal, and rather, it threatens our common base by using the printed items. Accordingly, D's officers and employees were attached with the ruling that their dismissal is legitimate, without any two written intent to keep the foundation of the case from the insolvent emblglgglgglgglgglgs, etc., and then printed out it, with the judgment of the National Labor Relations Commission against the victim Eth.

2. Judgment of innocence;

A. If an act that defames a person by openly pointing out a fact is true and solely for the public interest, it may not be punished pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

Here, "the time when the alleged facts are related to the public interest" is related to the public interest when objectively viewed, and the perpetrator also expresses the fact for the public interest subjectively.