The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) the content of each letter posted by the Defendant on the victim’s Internet shoulder (hereinafter “instant notice”) alone was identified as the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below's judgment that convicted the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. The crime of defamation does not necessarily require a person’s name to be explicitly indicated in order to establish the crime of defamation. In a case where a statement of fact without a person’s name is possible to identify which person is identified in light of the surrounding circumstances and the contents of the expression, the crime of defamation to the specific person constitutes a crime of defamation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do1256, Nov. 9, 1982; 201Do11226, Mar. 27, 2014). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below can be recognized by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (see, e.g., the following circumstances; (1) the Defendant posted the instant notice on the victim’s personal belt within the E-site; (2) the Defendant had been in dispute between the Defendant and the victim on the free bulletin board, etc. before preparing the instant notice, and (3) the Defendant was aware of the victim’s name and the victim’s face “the victim’s face” as the victim’s screen.