1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심이 그 채택 증거에 의하여 피고인은 2005. 7. 28. 21:30경 방송된 광주문화방송 뉴스시간에 ‘ (상호 생략)유통’이라는 납품업체와 관련된 학교급식의 문제점을 보도함에 있어 당일 (상호 생략)유통의 구사무실 간판이 촬영된 영상 중 ‘가공식품 (주) (상호 생략)유통, 018-612-4556’ 부분을 ‘(주)상의ㅠ, 식품 유통 18-612-4556’으로 편집한 화면과 함께 ‘공산품을 납품하는 이 업체는 5%의 리베이트를 조건으로 6개 학교에 납품업체로 선정되었습니다’라는 내용의 보도를 약 8초간 내보낸 사실 등을 인정한 후 위와 같은 방송보도를 접한 일반 시청자들로서는 학교에 리베이트를 제공하여 급식업체로 선정된 대상업체가 (상호 생략)유통임을 충분히 인식할 수 있었을 뿐만 아니라 피고인에 대하여 명예훼손의 고의가 인정된다고 판단한 것은 정당하고, 거기에 상고이유의 주장과 같이 채증법칙 위반 또는 심리미진으로 인한 사실오인이나 법리오해 등의 위법이 없다.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

In the event that a media, such as a broadcast, injures another person by pointing out a fact, is not subject to punishment under Article 310 of the Criminal Act, if the alleged facts are objectively deemed to relate to the public interest, and an actor is also required to indicate the facts for the public interest. In addition, the alleged facts are true or at least the actor believed to be true, and there are reasonable grounds to believe such facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3570, Sept. 24, 2002, etc.). Meanwhile, an actor must prove that the alleged facts constitute solely for the public interest (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1473, Oct. 25, 1996, etc.).

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, although the 14 educational and civic organizations opened and distributed joint reporters' opinions for the improvement of the school meal system at the press room of the City Office of Education, it is not true that "the mother company related to public products was selected at six schools by presenting the condition that 5% rebates be granted in the process of selecting school meal service companies, one of which is included in rebates," the reporter of the press, who is the person in charge of the above educational and civic organizations or the (trade name omitted) designated as the above "parent company related to public products" without properly investigating the authenticity of the distribution, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant, who is the reporter of the press, was selected as a food service provider in its own news gathering based only on the additional facts known in the process of responding to questions and answers thereto, as it is confirmed that (trade name omitted) was selected as a food service provider in return for the offering of rebates to six schools in this case, unless there is a considerable reason to believe that the defendant's prompt reporting or offering of the news coverage company's credibility in this case is difficult.

Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for rejection of illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act, as alleged in the

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)