1. The public performance, which is the requisite for the crime of defamation, refers to the state in which an unspecified or many people can recognize it (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do3124, Feb. 28, 1984, etc.). The content of the public performance does not have to be known to an unspecified or many unspecified persons in reality.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which affirmed the judgment that found the defendant guilty of the defamation of this case on the ground that the defendant had a public performance, and there were no errors in misunderstanding of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of legal principles due to the misapprehension of legal principles, or violation of judicial precedents, etc., as alleged in the grounds of appeal, in addition to that there was Nonindicted 1, a customer, at the time when the defendant made the statement of this case against the victim, the victim's (mutual name 1 omitted), and there were several persons in the (mutual name 2 omitted), and Nonindicted 2 took part in the fireworks and told the victim, and he again took part in the fighting.

2. In light of the purpose of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and the purport of Article 3(1) thereof, “a person who commits the crime by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object” under Article 3(1) of the same Act refers to the case where a person carries a deadly weapon or other dangerous object under “the intention to use” at the scene of the crime, or carries a body (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do401, Apr. 24, 1990). It does not include cases where a person carries a deadly weapon or other dangerous object regardless of the crime at all, but it does not require the victim to recognize the fact or have actually used it (see Supreme Court Decisions 84Do353, Apr. 10, 1984; 9Do4014, Apr. 24, 1990).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its adopted evidence, and judged that even if the defendant did not possess in order to inflict an injury on the victim, he intentionally inflicted an injury on the victim during the process of vision with the victim, so long as he intentionally displayed it in the process of vision with the victim, this constitutes a case of carrying a dangerous object under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, it is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence or violation of the

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from cases and are not appropriate to be invoked in this case.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)