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

1. On October 1, 2014, the facts charged by the Defendant at the office E company located in Ansan-si, Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant changed the business trip to a female, or even if there was no fact that he had been a female in the detention room, the Defendant, while there was an employee F and G, demanded the victim H to “I soon have changed with his house during the business trip, have started to do so soon, have started to do so, and there was a need to do so at night. The Defendant went to the detention room, and went back to the detention room at low time, and went to the barracks.

“The victim’s reputation was damaged by the patently large interest.”

2. The Defendant asserted that he made a statement identical to the facts charged at the time of the instant case (hereinafter “the instant statement”), but, at the time of the Defendant’s instant statement, the Defendant made a statement in the position of the office, on the grounds that the Defendant, in addition to the Defendant and the complainant, only had a managing director F and employees G of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) in addition to the Defendant and the accuser, and thus, made a statement in

There is also a possibility that the instant speech will spread.

As such, I argue that there is no performance.

3. Determination

A. The public performance, which is the element of the crime of defamation, refers to the state in which many and unspecified persons can recognize it, and although it has spreaded facts to one person individually.

Even if there is a possibility of spreading to an unspecified or unspecified person, the public performance requirement is satisfied, but if there is no possibility of spreading on the contrary, there is no public performance to spread facts to a specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do1007, Jul. 12, 1996; 9Do5622, May 16, 2000). Meanwhile, in a case where the public performance of the crime of defamation is recognized on the grounds of the possibility of dissemination, as a subjective element of the element of crime, there is a need for dolusence at least as a subjective element of the element of crime, and furthermore, the possibility of dissemination is recognized, as well as the risk is acceptable.