In order to establish the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts, the victim must express a specific false fact. However, since a person’s name is not necessarily required to express a false fact, the act of publicly alleging false facts that does not specify a person’s name is also possible to find out whether a specific person is identified by comprehensively determining the contents of the expression, it constitutes defamation against the specific person.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do1256, Nov. 9, 1982; 2004Do7862, Feb. 18, 2005). In a case where the important part of the facts alleged in the crime of defamation by a statement of false facts is consistent with objective facts, the detailed contents are different from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expressions.

Although it cannot be viewed as a false fact, when determining whether the alleged fact is false, it should be determined whether the part that is not consistent with the objective fact is an important part by examining the purport of the entire content of the alleged fact.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do2137, Apr. 29, 2005; 2010Do2690, May 9, 2012). Meanwhile, criminal facts have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do2137, Apr. 29, 2005; 2010Do2690, May 9, 201). Meanwhile, the determination of the choice of evidence

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The court below, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, stated that the theory of this case is nothing more than a fact that does not specify the victims, and the defendant stated the false facts with respect to the victims through the notice of the lawsuit of this case.