repeatedly slandered and verbally abused the two plaintiffs, alleging that Huang Xiaolan was mentally divergent, slandering that Lanshida Company provided defective instruments and blackmailed customers, which was also disseminated through WeChat groups and by other means, thus causing serious damage to the plaintiffs' reputation and business, so they petitioned the people's court to order that: 1. the defendant shall extend a formal apology to the two plaintiffs, and eliminate the ill effects and rehabilitate their reputation by posting an announcement on No. X of Shunyi District, Beijing and publishing an announcement in a local newspaper of Beijing; 2. the defendant shall compensate the plaintiff, Lanshida Company, for the loss of CNY20,000; and 3. the defendant shall compensate the two plaintiffs for mental damage consolation of CNY5,000 respectively. The defendant, Zhao Min, argued that the defendant did not send any information damaging the plaintiffs' reputation in the WeChat groups of owners in the residential quarter, but only talked with neighbors and good friends about the dispute with the two plaintiffs, and the issue also had a great impact on the defendant; besides the defendant, some other persons also believed that Lanshida Company provided defective instruments and blackmailed customers; and the plaintiffs' beauty shop was often closed, and the loss, if any, had nothing to do with the defendant. Therefore, she petitioned the court to reject the plaintiffs' claims. The court ascertained upon trial that Lanshida Company opened a beauty shop on the first floor of a residential quarter in Shunyi District, Beijing, and Huang Xiaolan was a shareholder and beautician of the company. At 4:00 PM on January 17, 2017, Zhao Min accompanied another owner of the residential quarter to the beauty shop for beauty treatment. When Huang Xiaolan provided beauty treatment for customers, Zhao Min inquired about matters concerning freckle removal in the beauty shop previously. Then a quarrel arose between the two persons on issues concerning beauty service. Subsequently, the competent public security authority made a decision on administrative punishment, i.e. imposing administrative detention of three days on Zhao Min. The plaintiffs claimed that as Zhao Min, whose WeChat account nickname was X Junzhu (WeChat account ID: X---calm), was the master of the WeChat groups of owners in the residential quarter, after the dispute arose between the two persons, Zhao Min repeatedly libeled, slandered, framed and verbally abused the two plaintiffs in the WeChat groups of owners, and removed Huang Xiaolan from the groups, thus causing serious damage 2