[유가증권위조,유가증권위조행사,명예훼손][공1992.7.15.(924),2065]
The meaning of public performance in the crime of defamation
In the crime of defamation, the public performance refers to the state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized, and even if the facts are distributed to one person individually, if there is a possibility of spreading them to many and unspecified persons, the requirements of public performance should be satisfied. However, if there is no possibility of spreading any other matter, the spread of facts to a specific person will lead to the public performance.
Article 307 of the Criminal Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-
A and one other
Prosecutor and Defendants
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 91No2744 delivered on December 27, 1991
All appeals are dismissed.
1. We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal.
According to the evidence in the first instance judgment of the court below, the facts constituting the crime of this case against the Defendants and the crime of exercising forged securities against Defendant A are all acknowledged. Thus, there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence as pointed out in the judgment of the court below. The argument is
2. We examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.
In the crime of defamation, the public performance refers to a state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized, and even if a fact is distributed to one person individually, if there is a possibility of spreading it to many and unspecified persons, it shall meet the requirements of public performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Do1023, Oct. 27, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 83Do49, Apr. 10, 1984; 85Do2037, Nov. 26, 1985; 89Do1467, Apr. 27, 1990; etc.).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found Defendant A not guilty of the facts charged of defamation on the ground that Nonindicted Party B, the receiver of the instant letter, did not have any possibility of spreading the content of the said letter to others and did not have any possibility of spreading it to others. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles or rules of evidence as pointed out,
Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)