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

1. In the facts charged by the Defendant at a media company B around October 2015, the Defendant: (a) the victim C calls to the Gu office to request the sanitary censorship of the frequency run by the Defendant; (b) even though the Defendant did not request the Gu office to inspect the sanitary censorship of the frequency run by the Defendant, the Defendant demanded the C Council member to directly put the phone into the Gu office and directly inspect the

section 3.

A member of the regional National Assembly puts pressure on telephone in the Gu office.

an employee of the Gu office of the Gu office

I am directly speaking.

“Along with the contents,” “Around October 12, 2015, an article of the same content on the B’s website was posted, thereby impairing the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

2. Determination

A. The facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial, whether subjective or objective requirements exist, are the prosecutor’s burden of proof. Thus, in a case prosecuted for an offense of defamation, the fact that the person’s social evaluation was revealed, and that the alleged facts are not consistent with the objective truth and are false, and that the defendant knew that the alleged facts were false, the prosecutor must prove all the facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1421, Jun. 12, 2008; 2007Do5836, Jan. 30, 2009; 2007Do5836, Jan. 30, 2009). In determining whether the above burden of proof has been fulfilled, not only the proof of the existence of the fact, but also the absence of a specific act at a specified period and place, but also the prosecutor must prove it without reasonable doubt as to the existence of the facts in a specific space, while it is difficult for the prosecutor to prove it more easily than the social norms.