Nevertheless, the court below that found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous as a misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. The crime of defamation is established when a person defames a person by openly alleging a fact (Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act). It is established when a specific fact that is likely to infringe on a specific person’s social value or assessment is publicly known with an unspecified or multiple people (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do340, Apr. 9, 2004; 2007Do5077, Oct. 25, 2007). In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, was living in FF apartment that was caused before the death of the student or the passenger.

Doz. Doz.

“,” “I do not go back due to scarbom violence.”

The defendant's above act constitutes defamation which publicly expresses specific facts likely to infringe on the victim E's social value or evaluation in a situation where an unspecified or many people can recognize it.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant thought that his father/he/she was faced with school violence such as bullying from the victim E, etc., and sought the victim E as a classroom during class to resist.

2) The Defendant was also living the victim E with the F apartment that had been faced with domestic violence before the collapse.

Doese?

D. The phrase "Iskhn Iskhnhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhn

Dr. Written objects.