The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case and the Defendant and C are members of the Diplomatic Club.

On May 8, 2011, the Defendant had been in the same club E and C with the same club members among the entire conference clubs around May 8, 201.

At around 21:30 on June 2, 201, the Defendant had a victim C, the above club members G, the president of the above club and the meeting in order to resolve the conflict caused by the above days. While the three above three persons hear, the Defendant openly damaged the reputation of C by saying, “Iss s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

2. Determination

A. The public performance, which is the constituent element of the crime of defamation, refers to the state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can be recognized, and even if a fact was distributed to one person individually, if there is a possibility of spreading it to many, unspecified or unspecified persons, the public performance does not have the possibility of spreading it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do1007, Jul. 12, 1996; 2010Do7497, Sept. 8, 2011). B

According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the following facts are revealed: ① Defendant, C, and G are members of D D E E E E EMton Club; H are the chief vice-chairperson of the above club and the chairman of the Standing Committee; ② Defendant was aware that he/she was married with E even though he/she had been married with E; and on May 8, 2011, he/she proposed the above issue as an agenda item at the monthly meeting of EMF club; but C, the chairman of the above club, proposed that the above problem was about private life; ③ around May 22, 2011, upon the Defendant’s proposal and statement as above, the Standing Committee was required to hold a standing committee.