The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, while working as the head of the overseas department of business of the company D; (b) from E, the head of the overseas business division of the same company and its subordinate employees; and (c) the head of the same company overseas business division (the head of the Asian team) and the head of the same company overseas business division (the head of the Asian team) also received a judgment in the case where the victim F, a subordinate employee of the Defendant, is suspected of committing sexual assault;

On October 21, 2011, the Defendant: (a) expressed in the Seoul coffee shop located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, that “F is a person with a lot of problems, such as “F being tried to be a sexual assault case” to the representative director G and regular H of the said company; and (b) expressed a petition of appeal and a copy of the statement of grounds of appeal against the victim, thereby impairing the honor of the victim by

B. Around that time, the Defendant, despite being aware that there is a possibility for other executives and employees in the office of Mapo-si to spread the content thereof, destroyed the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out facts by sending one copy of the petition of appeal and a copy of the statement of grounds of appeal against the victim to the manager of the office of the headquarters in the company in the company in Mapo-si, Kimhae-si.

C. On November 201, 201, the Defendant damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out facts to the effect that, with knowledge of the possibility of spreading the content of the content to other executives and employees in the company, the Defendant, “I are a petition of appeal. There is a petition of appeal to the F Department prior to the overseas business trip by stating to the J, the chief of the management innovation team, “I are in the process of trial by publicly pointing out the fact that any female would not refuse to do so.”

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s arguments are as follows. The Defendant are aware of the fact that F in the course of training through E works for the relocated workplace and is under trial for female employees during overseas business trips.