The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around 20:00 on February 4, 2015, the Defendant injured the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out the false fact that “E is working at the H office on August 8, 2013, when working at the H office, it was difficult for the head of the service team and the head of the service team, and thereby, it was difficult for the Defendant to put the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out the false fact that “The victim E received KRW 13 million from the agreed amount.”

2. The facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial for determination are the prosecutor’s burden of proof, regardless of the subjective requirement or objective requirement. As such, in a case prosecuted for defamation by a false statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the fact of harming the social reputation of a person was revealed, and the fact that the alleged facts do not coincide with the objective truth, and the Defendant knew that the alleged facts were false, as well as that of the alleged facts, should be proved by the prosecutor. In this case, when determining whether the alleged facts are false, the overall purport of the alleged facts should be examined. If the material facts are consistent with the objective facts, it cannot be viewed as false facts even if there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expressions.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do13718 Decided September 4, 2014, etc.). The Defendant recognized that “E was at the time of serving at the H office on August 2013, 2013, when working at the H office, it was difficult for the head of the labor team and the head of the labor team.” As indicated in its reasoning, the Defendant made the statement that “E was 13 million won with the agreed amount.”

However, according to the witness E's partial statement, part of the police interrogation protocol on E's interrogation, report on F's assault case, and each description of the background.