The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the facts charged lies with C on July 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) in a telephone call with C, the agent of the Seocho-gu Seoul, (b) on July 23:05, 2016, and (b) the Defendant got off KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for shares; (b) the Defendant received the victim’s benefits from the account in the name of his/her family; and (c) the victim did not file a criminal complaint in the course of his/her criminal investigation; and (d) the Defendant provided his/her son with his/her her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.”

Public performance, which is a constituent element of defamation, refers to a state in which an unspecified or many people can recognize it.

Even if the facts were distributed to one person individually, if there is a possibility of spreading them to many unspecified or unspecified persons, the spread of facts to a specific person does not have a public performance if it satisfies the requirements of performance but there is no possibility of spreading otherwise.

On the other hand, in cases where the public nature of defamation is recognized on the ground of the possibility of dissemination as above, 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 dissemination, as well as an intent to review the risk to

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do4200, Jun. 15, 2018). The following circumstances acknowledged through each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, ① the Defendant, an agent, who had been an agent, was talked with a telephone call from the same agent Co., Ltd., who had been involved in a telephone call.