1. On May 14, 2014, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s office around 08:41, 2014, injured the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts (hereinafter “the instant remarks”), even though the victim was divorced, and the victim and de facto marriage with the victim did not bring about the victim’s wage due to the Defendant’s non-payment from the Defendant. However, the Defendant’s reputation was damaged by publicly pointing out false facts (hereinafter “the instant remarks”).

2. The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that rejected the Defendant’s assertion that there was no performance of the instant speech, and found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the F did not have a relationship to keep the content of the instant speech confidential to protect the honor of the victim or to escape the Defendant from the Defendant’s legal responsibility.

3. Supreme Court Decision

A. Public performance is a constituent element of the crime of defamation, and in the event of factual events against a specific minority, there is a serious reason to deny the public performance. Therefore, the prosecutor’s strict proof on the possibility of dissemination is necessary.

If the other party to the statement has a private-friendly relationship, such as the speaker's or the victim's spouse, relative, or relative, or a public official who is required to maintain or process his/her duty or a similar position, performance is denied if it is expected that the confidentiality of such relationship or status is considerably high.

As above, the speaker, the other party, and the victim are in a special relationship.