The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order for a crime of defamation to be established, it is required to engage in an act of expressing specific facts sufficient to undermine a person’s social reputation with intent to defame another person as a subjective element (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2877, Oct. 28, 2010). Therefore, in a case where a statement was made that defames another person in the course of asking questions in order to verify the authenticity of an influence, it is difficult to acknowledge the intention of defamation in light of the motive thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do588, May 28, 1985). Moreover, performance, which is the constituent element of the crime of defamation, refers to the state in which an unspecified or multiple persons can be identified.

Although there was spread of facts against one person individually;

Even if there is a possibility that the crime of defamation may be disseminated to an unspecified or unspecified person, the dissemination of facts against a specific person shall not be performed if it satisfies the requirements of public performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do5622, May 16, 2000; 2010Do7497, Sept. 8, 2011). Meanwhile, in a case where the public performance of the crime of defamation is recognized on the grounds of the possibility of dissemination as above, at least the subjective element of the elements of crime, there is a need for dolusence as a subjective element of the elements of crime, so 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 confirmed from the standpoint of an actor in consideration of how to evaluate the possibility of radio waves if the general public is based on specific circumstances, such as the form and situation of the act that appeared outside (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do8914, May 27, 2005; 2010Do2877, Oct. 28, 2010). 2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the operator of Mart.