The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is recognized as a performance because the defendant was engaged in both E and E as well as E at the time of speaking in this case.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates a “Cjuk” in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim D was a person who was at the bottom of the said “Cjuk”.

On January 23, 2016, between 03:00 and 03:30, the Defendant stated that “F (the name of the injured party) was originally sponsored, but it was impossible to take over the said customer because the phone was well known.”

However, in fact, the victim did not have a "sphone", and it was merely that the defendant demanded to pay excessive premium and did not take over the premium.

Nevertheless, the Defendant undermined the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts as above.

3. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged, while considering the relationship between E and the victim, etc., the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that he did not have a public performance.

4. Judgment of the court below

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged, such as the judgment of the court below, and that there was a single person of E and E at the site at the time.

B. In the crime of defamation, the public performance refers to the state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can be recognized, and even if the public performance spreads false facts on the job of two people, if there is a possibility of spreading them to the outside, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of defamation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do1880 delivered on September 30, 1994, etc.). In the case of E, the Defendant’s speech is unlikely to be disseminated to a third party as stated in the original judgment.