The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal lies in the fact-finding that another person is aware that there is a possibility for another person to spread the words from the defendant, and there is an error of law in the judgment of the court below which misleads another person

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on defamation of July 27, 2012) The summary of this part of the facts charged is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant, around July 27, 2012, at the home of the Defendant under Article 102 of the Building C in Gangwon-gu, Gangwon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”), the Defendant, despite the fact that the victim D’s wife F and winded, called “D has winded, ......... is the crime destroying the Defendant’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by sending the Defendant’s speech to D.... The lower court determined that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3) The public performance, which is the constituent element of the crime of defamation of the political party’s judgment, refers to the state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized. Thus, even if the facts were distributed to one person individually, if there is a possibility that the facts might be disseminated to the unspecified or many unspecified persons, the requirements for the public performance are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8155, Feb. 14, 2008). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, namely, (i) even though the period of 10 years has elapsed since G became aware of D, it is merely a ex post facto pro rata relationship (Evidence No. 52) (Evidence No. 52 of the evidence record), and (ii) the defendant was not aware of G from the beginning, and simply was known through the cell phone Kakao program (Evidence No. 39, 51 of the evidence record), G is the same as the facts charged from