In case where only a person presents a fact that he/she may lose his/her social value or evaluation in a way that allows him/her to hear such fact, whether public performance, which is a constituent element of the crime of defamation, is recognized (negative)

Public performance, which is the constituent element of defamation, refers to a state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized, and even if one person expresses the fact, if there is a possibility of spreading it to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, it satisfies the requirements of public performance. However, if a person expresses a fact that he/she may lose his/her social value or evaluation by means of listening only to him/her, such as Soviet, he/she cannot be deemed to have a possibility of spreading it to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, and such conclusion does not affect the conclusion of defamation even if he/she voluntarily spreads words to another person.

Article 307 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and Prosecutor (Defendant 2)

Attorney Choi Sung-sung

Changwon District Court Decision 2003No1483 delivered on April 27, 2004

All appeals are dismissed.

1. The court below found Defendant 1 guilty of confinement, intimidation, assault, injury, and negligence among the facts charged in the instant case by integrating the evidence presented in its reasoning. In light of the records, it is proper to take such measures of the court below, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to mistake of facts against the rules of evidence, etc. as alleged in the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1’s defense counsel, and the Supreme Court decision delivered in the grounds of appeal differs from

2. Public performance, which is the constituent element of the crime of defamation, refers to a state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can be recognized. Although one person’s statement of facts is likely to spread to an unspecified or unspecified person, if one person’s statement of facts is likely to do so, it satisfies the requirements of public performance. However, if such a statement expresses facts that are likely to undermine his/her social value or evaluation by a method that allows him/her to hear, such as a person’s speech, he/she cannot be deemed to have spread to an unspecified or unspecified person, and such conclusion does not affect the conclusion, even if he/she spreads words to another person.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below found Defendant 2 not guilty of the facts charged of defamation among the facts charged of this case on the ground that Defendant 2 did not recognize the public performance, which constitutes an element of defamation, so that only the victim could hear only non-indicted 1, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the public performance of defamation, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the public performance of defamation.

3. Therefore, each of the appeals by a prosecutor and Defendant 1 is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)