The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not indicate publicly false facts as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. The public performance, which is the constituent element of the crime of defamation as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, refers to the state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized. Even if one person has distributed facts to an individual, if there is a possibility of spreading them to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, it shall meet the requirements of public performance, but if there is no possibility of spreading facts to an contrary, the spread

(See Supreme Court Decisions 96Do107 delivered on July 12, 1996 and 99Do5622 delivered on May 16, 2000, etc.). Meanwhile, in a case where the public performance of defamation crime is acknowledged on the ground of the possibility of dissemination, the psychological state should be ratified from the perspective of an actor, considering how to assess the possibility of dissemination if the general public is based on specific circumstances, such as the form of an act that was externally revealed and the situation of an act that was committed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do340 delivered on April 9, 2004). The following circumstances revealed from the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① in light of the size of E stores where the Defendant and the victim, etc. worked and the age of their employees, etc., it appears that the written indictment against a specific person could have been spread rapidly, and ② between the employees of the sales center and the records of the court below as to the victim.