All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The Defendant (misunderstanding of facts as to the part of the charge, misunderstanding of legal principles) made the Defendant’s statement in the process of requesting arbitration against E in relation to the child violence case to E-gu, and the Defendant’s oral statement at that time was not likely to spread to the third party because H, I, D, and G have a friendly relationship with E, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charge.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, even though the Defendant’s remarks to K, a reporter, around August 18, 2017, as described in the facts charged, constituted defamation, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, although the possibility of spreading and performing publicly constitutes defamation.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the lower court also asserted as the same in the trial, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be said that there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The prosecutor's assertion is publicly announced when the facts are publicly known to ordinary people who are not ordinary reporters, so the possibility of dissemination should immediately be determined based on whether the facts are publicly presented from that time. However, if the facts are publicly known through reporters, it shall be deemed that the publicly known facts are publicly announced only when they are published and reported. Therefore, if the reporters do not yet publish and report after news gathering, it shall be deemed that there is no possibility of dissemination, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that there is no performance.

Supreme Court Decision 99Do5622 delivered on May 16, 2000