Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

In addition, since the defendant's wife mistakenly stated that the defendant's wife and the victim's wife are the same as that of the defendant's wife and the victim in the process of harming the defendant's wrong mind that the defendant's wife in divorce lawsuit is in an influence relation, there is no intention of defamation.

Furthermore, at the time of dialogue between C and C at the fireworks operated by C, there was only two defendants and C at the same time, and C is a space between both the defendant and the victim and the victim, so there is no performance.

2. In the appellate court's ex officio determination, the prosecutor changed the criminal facts of the judgment below as stated in the criminal facts column for the judgment below, and applied for permission to change the applicable provisions to Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act under Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act, and the appellate court's permission to change the above indictment changed to Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the judgment below

As above, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, even though there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. For the establishment of defamation, it is required to engage in an act of publicly alleging specific facts sufficient to undermine a person’s social reputation with intent to defame another person as a subjective constituent element (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2877, Oct. 28, 2010). In addition, performance that constitutes the constituent element of defamation refers to a state in which an unspecified or many unspecified persons can be recognized.

Even if one person has spreaded facts individually, it may be disseminated to an unspecified or many unspecified persons.