1. The public performance which is a constituent element of defamation means a state in which many, unspecified persons may recognize it;

Since it does not necessarily have to be recognized at the same time by many and unspecified persons, if there is a possibility to spread to many and unspecified persons even though one has distributed facts individually, it satisfies the requirements of performance.

However, if there is no possibility to spread differently, there is no possibility to spread facts to a particular person.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do5622, May 16, 200; 2010Do7497, Sept. 8, 2011). Whether there exists a possibility of radio waves ought to be objectively determined in a specific case, taking into account various circumstances, such as the details of the statement made and the situation at the time of the statement, the offender’s intent and the attitude at the time of the statement, the other party’s attitude, the relationship between the victim and the victim, the contents of the statement, and the other party’s ordinary inclination.

In the case of recognizing the public performance of defamation on the ground of the possibility of spreading, dolusent intent is required as a subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime, so there is a perception of the possibility of dissemination, as well as an intent to deliberate to allow the risk.

If the general public is based on specific circumstances, such as the form and situation of an act that was externally revealed, how to evaluate the possibility of dissemination, the psychological condition of the actor should be ratified from the standpoint of the actor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do340, Apr. 9, 2004; 2018Do4200, Jun. 15, 2018). 2. The lower court held that the Defendant publicly stated false facts to G and H, and that G and H do not have any relationship with the Defendant, victim B, and D, and that they are not responsible for the duty of confidentiality.