Public performance in the crime of spreading facts against a particular person and defamation;

The term "public performance", which is the constituent element of the crime of defamation, refers to the state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized. Thus, even if one person spreads facts individually, if there is a possibility of spreading them to many and unspecified persons, it satisfies the requirements of public performance. However, in the case of contrary, the spread of facts to a particular person lacks public performance.

Article 307 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do787 Decided May 16, 1967

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 80No1233 delivered on February 10, 1981

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

The term “public performance”, which is a constituent element of the crime of defamation under Article 307 of the Criminal Act, refers to a state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized. Thus, even if one person spreads facts individually, if there is a possibility of spreading them to many and unspecified persons, it satisfies the requirements of public performance (see Supreme Court Decision 68Do1569, Dec. 24, 1968). However, if there is no possibility of spreading any other matter, the spread of facts to a certain person cannot be deemed to lack public performance (see Supreme Court Decision 66Do787, May 16, 1967).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the court of first instance recognized that the defendant made a statement to the non-indicted in a restaurant that the victim 1 and the non-indicted 2 are in in secret relations, thereby openly pointing out false facts, and thereby impairing the reputation. However, in the statement of the non-indicted 1 in the prosecutor's document issued by the above court of first instance, the non-indicted 2 should have heard the above statements at the place where the defendant left a restaurant, the non-indicted 1 should have heard the above statements at the place where the defendant was left in the restaurant, and the victim 1 had no way to find the victim 1 immediately, and according to the above prosecutor's statement as to the victim 1 and Park use, the contents which the defendant told the non-indicted 2 were transmitted to the non-indicted 2, and the defendant's act of finding the victim and the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1 to the extent that there is no possibility of spreading the victim's identity to the non-indicted 3.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is not maintained, and it is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)