The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 2017. 7. 25. 20:50경 고소인 B의 친구 C의 휴대전화(D) 어플 E으로 접속하여 고소인에 대하여 “걔 글레 아님 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ, 다른 애들이 확인했다든데 ㅋㅋㅋ, 누군지 콕찝어서 말은 못하겠지만 걔랑 몸섞은 남자들이 많다는건 니도 잘 알지 않나 ”라는 허위의 글을 올려 공연히 고소인의 명예를 훼손하였다.

2. Public performance in 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 individually, if there is a possibility of spreading it to many, unspecified or unspecified persons, it shall be deemed that the requirement of public performance is satisfied. However, if there is no possibility to spread it differently, the distribution of facts against a particular person is deemed to lack of public performance. The existence of public performance should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and contents of the statement, the method and place of the statement, the relationship between the person and the defendant or the victim, and whether the expression was actually disseminated.

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Do891 Decided February 28, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 99Do4579 Decided February 11, 200, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do574 Decided September 11, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 201Do7497 Decided September 8, 201, etc.). Meanwhile, the circumstance that performance exists constitutes the elements of crime, and the burden of proof exists to the prosecutor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12132 Decided November 25, 2010, etc.). The instant case is deemed to have been sent the same text as the instant facts charged at a reading room where only the Defendant and C are located, by entering the “E Open-Outing” established by the Defendant’s friendship C with the complainant. However, in light of the following circumstances revealed through the instant records, the Defendant’s writing is dialogue.