1. In order to establish the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts as to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal, the victim must indicate false facts. However, since a person’s name is not necessarily required to explicitly indicate false facts, if it is possible to find out whether a person’s name is designated as a specific person in light of the surrounding circumstances and overall determination of the contents of the expression, the crime of defamation against the specific person constitutes the crime of defamation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do1256, Nov. 9, 1982; 2004Do7862, Feb. 18, 2005). In a case where an essential part of the facts alleged in the crime of defamation by a false representation is consistent with objective facts, where the material part of the facts alleged in the crime of defamation by a false representation is inconsistent with objective facts, the detailed content differs from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expressions exist.

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.

(2) The crime of insult is a person who is not a natural person but a juristic person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do2137, Apr. 29, 2005; 2010Do2690, May 9, 2012). The protected legal interest of the crime of insult is, like the crime of defamation, an external reputation of a person’s value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do739, May 12, 1987). Meanwhile, the crime of insult includes not only a natural person but also a juristic person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3901, Jul. 14, 201). Meanwhile, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act).