The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is the representative director of the management company specialized in improvement projects B (hereinafter referred to as “B”), and the victim C is the president of the management company specialized in improvement projects (hereinafter referred to as “association”).

On April 28, 2011, the Cooperative concluded a specialized management service with B in relation to D-Housing Reconstruction Project, and terminated the said contract on May 201, and on May 25, 2013, the Cooperative concluded a contract with B with the same content as sub-B and terminated the contract again on October 31, 2014 in accordance with the resolution of the board of directors of the Cooperative on October 31, 2014.

On September 13, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 16:00, the conference room in Seodaemun-gu Seoul and the first floor; and (b) on September 2013, 2013, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts by openly stating the following facts: (a) the F and the victim, who entered into a design service contract with the Cooperative and entered into a design service contract with respect to the building design of the Cooperative around 2013, did not have divided the additional construction design service cost equivalent to KRW 700 million into the Cooperative; (b) the director G of the Cooperative, the auditor of the Cooperative, and the J, etc., who are the husband of the Cooperative; and (c) the design firm F, who is more than KRW 10 billion, suffered damage to the residents in the future; and (d) the design firm F, who is more equipped with the design service cost of KRW 700 million,

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the investigative agency consistently stated in the facts charged, from the date and place to the present court, additional construction cost of 10 billion won for the modification of a design occurs, and that the design modification cost to be paid to the designer F may be added to 700 million won, and that there is no such expressions as stated in the facts charged.

B. There are respective statements of C, G, I, J, K, L, M, and N as evidence corresponding to the facts charged. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the prosecutor submitted them.