A. It is true that at the time of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, there are a large number of residents in the meeting room of executives of the apartment of this case, the victim is “5 million won from management expenses

However, prior to that, the Defendant took the above remarks from former executives, etc., and at the time, made the above remarks in order to raise the suspicion against the victim, who is the chairman of the residents' autonomous management council of the apartment of this case. Therefore, the above remarks cannot be deemed as constituting a statement of specific facts in the crime of defamation under the Criminal Act, and there was no intention to commit a crime that damages the reputation of the victim at the time.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of defamation or defamation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, the term “statement of fact” in the crime of defamation of the relevant legal principles is a concept substituted by an expression of opinion with a value judgment or evaluation, which refers to a report or statement on the past or present facts in time and space, and its contents can be proved by evidence.

In addition, in distinguishing between whether a statement of determination is a fact or an opinion, the determination should be made by taking into account the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, possibility of proof, the context where the language in question was used, the context where the expression was used, and the social situation where the expression was made, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2956, Mar. 24, 1998). Furthermore, it is sufficiently specific to lower the social value or assessment of a specific person.