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

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. On March 1, 2015, the Defendant, at around 10:00, damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts by stating that “The Defendant, at around 10:00, had not attended meetings of the apartment association, such as the victim G, such as I, the H apartment representative, and had no drinking, at the meeting of the chairperson of the apartment association where the Dong representative I had been living, two female executive officers (the female executive officers of the Dong representative group are only victims G and J) at night at the meeting of the apartment association of the apartment association where he had been living.”

B. Selectively, the Defendant: (a) did not appear at the meeting of the apartment federation, such as I, the victim G, the representative of H apartment; (b) provided meals to E; and (c) provided that, although there was no fact between the two parties, the Defendant damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by stating, “At night, the Dong representative I took two female executives (the female executives of the Dong representative group are only the victim G and J) at the meeting of the chairperson of the apartment association located in the area where the apartment association was located; and (d) provided meals to two female executives at night.”

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant argued to E that “If two women of our apartment stay at the meeting of the apartment association, they would go to the meeting of the apartment association”, and consistently that there is no word such as the statement in the facts charged from the investigative agency to this court, the Defendant argued to E that there is no word such as the statement in the facts charged.

As shown in this part of the facts charged, there are statements made by victim G in investigative agencies and by E and K in investigative agencies and this court.

However, the record reveals the following circumstances.

① In the first oral statement of the police, E was said to be “two women,” and the Defendant’s speech was called “two women,” and the Defendant’s speech was called “two women,” respectively.