명예훼손
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the summary of the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles that the first instance court did not recognize the crime of defamation because it did not meet the requirements of public performance in the crime of defamation, since F is the friendship of the defendant, although it is the friendship of the defendant, as it is the friendship of the defendant, and thus, is likely to spread the fact of defamation to many unspecified or unspecified persons.
2. In the crime of defamation, performance refers to a state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can recognize it. Thus, even if a fact is distributed to one person individually, if there is a possibility of spreading it to many, unspecified or unspecified persons, the requirement of performance is satisfied.
However, if there is no possibility of spreading any other matter, the dissemination of facts to a particular person is a public performance.
I would like to say.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 delivered on June 25, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 83Do891 delivered on February 28, 1984, etc.). The first instance court duly adopted and examined the following circumstances: (i) the Defendant made a phone call to E-friendly job offering F while not having contact with E; and (ii) the Defendant naturally made a sexual intercourse with E in the course of pursuing whether the Defendant had a sexual intercourse with E; and (iii) the Defendant called “the first one would enjoy it; (iv) the Defendant came to have a sexual intercourse with E; and (v) the following comments were made by the Defendant only after having come to know of the above contents; (v) the Defendant did not spread the above contents to other persons; and (v) the Defendant did not know that the Defendant had a sexual intercourse with E in the process of pursuing whether the Defendant had a sexual intercourse with E.