The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be determined by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, it cannot be deemed that C was specified as the victim because the victim C’s three clubs propy, which are recorded in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, did not contain any personal information, such as C’s name, and there is no performance, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the victim’s specific and performance.

B. The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of defamation as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is established by impairing the reputation of a certain person or an organization possessing a particular character (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do5407, Oct. 10, 200). Thus, for defamation to be recognized, the victim should be identified. Even if a person’s name, etc. is not specified and an article or image itself is not enough to recognize the victim, and the contents of the expression can be identified as the victim in full view of the surrounding circumstances, if the victim can be identified as the victim.

In order to establish tort caused by defamation, the victim must be identified but a person’s name is not necessarily required to specify the specific person’s name in the context of determining the tort, even if a person’s name is not indicated, if it is possible to identify whose name is indicated in light of the surrounding circumstances and comprehensiveness of the contents of the expression, it shall be deemed that the victim was identified.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da36622 delivered on May 10, 1994). “Public performance” in the crime of defamation refers to a state in which an unspecified or many people can recognize it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7497, Sept. 8, 2011). In order to establish the offense of insult, the victim is also a victim.