A. At the time of claiming a misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant had tried to hear the other party’s answer to the facts that he had predicted while talking about the company’s complaint to the workplace club fee, etc., or had made his own scamical remarks. Lastly, the Defendant did not seem to have told the victim G vice president and H vice president as if he were in in inhumane relationship, such as each of the instant charges.

Nevertheless, since the court below convicted each of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the legal principles, even if the Defendant, even if at the time, made a statement as stated in each of the facts charged of this case to the workplace rent, etc., it is not recognized as public performance because there is no possibility of dissemination to many and unspecified persons, and even if there was a possibility of dissemination, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant

Nevertheless, the court below convicted each of the facts charged of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant could find the fact that the victim and the H deputy head talked about the victim's complaint about the victim's work performance (related to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the indictment). Meanwhile, according to the witness F and L's statement in each court below, the defendant did not directly use the above F and L with the word "F," but rather, "the victim and H deputy head are the same." However, at the time of the defendant's entire statement, the victim was the vice head and the H vice head and the H vice head were the victim.

A. The wife of the victim.