The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not intend to impair the reputation of the victim, but did not have a public performance, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicted the Defendant

2. The public performance, which is the constituent element of the crime of defamation, refers to the state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can be recognized. Even if a fact was distributed to one person individually, if there is a possibility of spreading it to many, unspecified or unspecified persons, the requirement of public performance is satisfied, but if there is no possibility of spreading it to the contrary, the spread of fact to a specific person

Meanwhile, in a case where the public performance of defamation is acknowledged on the ground of the possibility of spreading as above, at least dolusent intent is required as a subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime, and thus, there is a perception of the possibility of spreading, as well as an intent to review the risk to allow such danger. Whether the actor is aware of the possibility of spreading should be determined on the basis of specific circumstances, such as the form of the act that appeared outside and the situation of the act. In light of how to assess the possibility of spreading, the psychological state from the standpoint of the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2877 Decided October 28, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court revealed that (i) the Defendant was aware from the victim that her husband died of leuk blood disease; (ii) the Defendant was aware that her husband was dead on the ground that her husband was dead; (iii) the Defendant was divorced from D before the instant case; (iv) the victim was aware that her husband was not dead, but divorced from her husband; and (iv) the Defendant asserts that she was aware of why she would have caused her lethy, and that she would not know why she would have caused her lethy, and that she would have caused her to speak as described in the facts charged