The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1 million.

1. According to the established decision of the Supreme Court established the gist of the grounds for appeal, if the facts are likely to be disseminated to an unspecified or many unspecified persons even if they are distributed individually, they meet the requirements of performance. There are no special circumstances where the Defendants should be acquitted while denying the above legal principles, and the Defendants committed an act in the facts charged in mind with the possibility of spreading. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the public performance of defamation

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is the victim C and D, and the victim G is an insurance customer of the victim C.

(1) On December 2015, Defendant A (A) thought that the Defendant was deprived of the status of the team leader due to the victim C at the meeting room of the FF on the early 2015, the Defendant was frightly made a good appraisal to the said victim, and the fact that the victim C did not have a fright relationship with the victim D, a work partner, even though the victim C was not in a fright relationship with the victim D, who was working for the same office, damaged the reputation of the said victims by openly pointing out false facts.

(B) On December 2015, the Defendant, at the above F1st coffee shop, damaged the reputation of the victims by openly pointing out false facts, by stating that “C and B’s secret D are inappropriate relations, even though the victims C and the victims D and G were not in in inhumanious relations. C are also inappropriate relations with the president G of the beauty room, and is in monetary use. If G introduces female customers, it would enter into an insurance contract with the inappropriate relationship.”

(C) The Defendant is Ansan-si from February 2016 to March 201.