The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around 14:00 on January 13, 2013, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victims by openly pointing out false facts, stating that “E and F had a sexual intercourse with the Defendant’s wife, a private village, with the same village-friendly victim E, and the victim F, a village-friendly village-friendly village-friendly village-friendly village-friendly relationship.”

2. In the crime of defamation, performance refers to a state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can be recognized. Thus, even if a fact is distributed to one person, if there is a possibility of spreading from one person to an unspecified or unspecified person, the performance requirement 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.

(2) In the instant case, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7497, Sept. 8, 201). However, the Defendant made a statement that he/she made the same statement as the facts charged only to a person who is a village principal by a telephone that makes it impossible for another person to grasp the contents of the conversation (On the other hand, I, E, in an investigative agency or this court, and the Defendant called to a person who resides in the same village as H, but the Defendant denies it since the investigative agency, and the prosecution did not include this part of the prosecution) and ② H, as this Chapter, has been frequently in charge of resolving or mediating disputes or disputes in the Pyeongtaek village. As such, the Defendant, as argued by the Defendant, was trying to resolve this problem by informing the head of G, who is his/her employee.