The meaning of public performance in the crime of defamation

Article 307 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do1023 Decided October 27, 1981 (Gong1982, 85) Supreme Court Decision 83Do891 Decided February 28, 1984 (Gong1984, 641) Supreme Court Decision 99Do4579 Decided February 11, 200 (Gong200Sang, 747)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Cheongju District Court Decision 2006No39 Decided June 7, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

1. In the crime of defamation, performance refers to a state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can be recognized, and even if the facts are distributed to one person individually, if there is a possibility of spreading them to many, unspecified or unspecified persons, the requirements of public performance shall be satisfied. However, if there is no possibility of spreading any other fact, the distribution of facts to a specific person shall lead to public performance (see Supreme Court Decisions 81Do1023, Oct. 27, 1981; 83Do891, Feb. 28, 1984; 99Do4579, Feb. 11, 200, etc.).

The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to view that the defendant's publicly alleged fact is likely to spread to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, in light of the following legal principles and records: although it is acknowledged that the defendant made a statement to the effect that he would impair the reputation of the victim as stated in its reasoning, the defendant and the victim, the victim, the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2, and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2, the relationship between the defendant and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 were aggravated due to the dispute between the defendant and the non-indicted 1 among the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2, even though 10 months have passed since they received the above statements from the defendant, the relation became worse due to the dispute between the defendant and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2, as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)