The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: Defendant A was serving as the supervisor of the Liet Business Division F&B Group; Defendant C was dismissed on May 2016 while serving as the supervisor of the above cooking; Defendant B was dismissed on July 18, 2011 while serving as the supervisor of the food beverage support department from around 1995; and Defendant B was reinstated as of March 1, 2017 and all Defendants were in office of the same department while serving as the supervisor of the food beverage support department.

On May 27, 2016, the Defendants conspired with each other, posted a banner “F, i.e., “F., a daily tort walk walk walk walk walk,” so that many and unspecified persons can read, and up to August 15, 2016, posted the banner of the following contents 19 times in total as indicated in the list of crimes:

However, the FF corporation did not have any fact of manipulating sexual harassment case.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to cause damage to the reputation of the victimized company by openly pointing out false facts.

2. Determination

A. The facts constituting the elements of the crime charged in a criminal trial are the prosecutor, regardless of the subjective requirement or objective requirement. As such, in the case prosecuted for the crime of defamation of reputation by a statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the fact that there was a statement of harming people’s social reputation was made, as well as the fact that the alleged facts are not consistent with the objective truth, and that the Defendant knew that the alleged facts were false, and thus, the prosecutor must prove all of them. In such a case, when determining whether the alleged facts are false, the prosecutor must examine the overall purport of the alleged facts, and if the important parts are consistent with the objective facts, the truth is smaller in detail.