A. The other party who delivered the content of defamation to the victim in the instant case by misunderstanding the legal doctrine is a member of the meeting with the same victim as that of the victim B (hereinafter “B”), and it was difficult for him/her to have a very close relationship with the victim, and for the same reason, he/she was in the position of sufficiently protecting the legal interests of the victim. Thus, performance is not recognized.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “Public performance” in the crime of defamation on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to the state in which an unspecified person or a large number of people can be recognized. Although spreading facts individually against one person, if there is a possibility of spreading to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, the requirement of performance is satisfied, but if there is no possibility of spreading any other fact, the spread of facts against a specific person does not constitute public performance (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7497 Decided September 8, 201). Based on the above legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the defendant was a non-Confidence-Confidence at the meeting of the general director, who was in office as the president of the meeting on March 20, 2019, and the victim appears to have been in conflict with the defendant and the victim, ② The defendant was aware of the fact that the victim was not interested in the defamation of the victim, and ③ the defendant was aware of the fact that the victim was not interested in the defamation of the victim.

section 2.2.