The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged by the Defendant, around August 10, 2017, at the Defendant’s residence located in the building No. C of the Masung-si Building B, the Defendant was able to walk the phone to D, who is the friendship of his/her his/her father, thereby making it impossible for G, who is the son of the F, first of all in his/her mother, to cover the hhume and hume his/her hume, and even in the school class, G would be able to take the hume into account the h's hume.

The honor of the victim G was damaged by openly pointing out a fact in the manner referred to as “.”

2. Public performance refers to a state in which many and unspecified persons can recognize it as a constituent element of the crime of damaging relevant legal principles and honor.

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 the crime of defamation is recognized on the grounds of the possibility of dissemination as above, dolusence is required as a subjective element of the elements of crime, and thus, there is a perception of the possibility of dissemination, as well as an intent to deliberate to allow the risk.

The issue of whether an actor permitted the possibility of radio waves should be determined in light of the general public’s specific circumstances, such as the form and situation of an act occurring outside the country, and the psychological state from the standpoint of the actor ought to be ratified (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do4200, Jun. 15, 2018). 3. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the fact that the Defendant called D to D at the time and place indicated in the facts charged was recognized, and the facts charged in itself does not necessarily mean that the Defendant made the above statement to D in a state that he/she could be recognized as unspecified or many.