The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have made the instant speech (hereinafter “instant speech”) as stated in the lower judgment, and there was no performance, and the Defendant did not think that E would have disseminated the instant speech. As such, there was no awareness about the possibility of dissemination.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles affecting the judgment.

2) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles refers to the state in which an unspecified or many unspecified persons can recognize the existence of a crime of defamation, and even if a fact is publicly known to one individual, if there is a possibility of spreading it to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, it satisfies the requirements of public performance. In the event of recognizing the public performance of the crime of defamation on the grounds of the possibility of dissemination, at least dolusent intent is required as a subjective element of crime constituent elements, and thus, there is no awareness of the possibility of dissemination, as well as the intent to deliberate at the level in which the risk is permissible. Whether the actor permitted the possibility of dissemination or not should be evaluated by the general public on the basis of specific circumstances such as the form of the act and the situation of the act, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do340, Apr. 9, 2004, etc.). The court below duly adopted and investigated the evidence as follows, namely, the husband of the Defendant’s husband, agricultural cooperative, and the victim is the president of H.