Whether a publicly alleged fact constitutes a publicly alleged fact in the crime of defamation (affirmative)

(b) Dissemination and performance of facts on one person;

The statement of fact in the crime of defamation, regardless of whether it was shown to have been specialized to others who alleged to have tested themselves by the person who alleged the fact.

B. 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. Thus, even if a fact was distributed to one person, if there is a possibility of spreading it to an unspecified or unspecified person, the requirements

Article 307 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Do1569 Decided December 24, 1968 81Do1023 Decided October 27, 1981

Defendant

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 84No1313 delivered on January 31, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

Since the statement of fact in the crime of defamation is an unwritten statement from the person who made the statement of fact by himself to the person who made the statement of fact by himself to the person who made the statement of fact by himself, the defendant's speech and behavior that made the victim's person to live with the man who made the statement of fact constitutes a statement of fact. Moreover, it is sufficient to view that the defendant's act constitutes a factual fact with the possibility of undermining the victim's social evaluation as it spreads the inhumanity relationship that is likely to undermining the victim's social evaluation. Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that the defendant's act does

Meanwhile, public performance, which is the constituent element of defamation, refers to the state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized. Although a fact was disseminated to one person individually, if there is a possibility of spreading it to many and unspecified persons, it shall meet the requirements of public performance (see Supreme Court Decision 68Do1569, Dec. 24, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 81Do1023, Oct. 27, 1981). According to the facts and records affirmed by the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, the defendant was inside the office of the executive secretary, namely, the place in which the facts were stated, although he was the place in which the facts were stated, he was the head of the bureau and the Dong, and all of them were the members of the church such as the victim, and they could find out the special status relationship with the victim that there was no possibility of spreading the victim's written statement to many and unspecified persons, and therefore, it cannot be accepted by the misapprehension of legal principles as to performance guidance.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju