[2] Whether the National Livestock Cooperatives Federation’s act of spending funds necessary for the realization of its basic purpose, the maintenance, management, and public relations of its organization constitutes “the act of using funds for purposes other than business purposes” under Article 143 of the former Livestock Cooperatives Act (negative)

[3] The method to determine whether a financial institution’s manager had an intent to commit a breach of trust in relation to management judgment related to financial transactions

[4] In a case where a part of a publication was cited after introducing it as it was on a publication with the intent to criticize another person's speech, and a certain part of it was distorted or added to criticism of biased contents, whether it can be deemed that a false fact was stated (negative with qualification)

[5] The meaning of "public interest" under Article 310 of the Criminal Code, and whether there is a proof that the public interest is about "public interest" in the case where a public announcement of the fact that it is true or true about the issue of public interest (affirmative with qualification)

[6] In a case where the president of the National Livestock Cooperatives Federation published an advertisement containing the legitimacy of the import chain distribution and sales recommendation policies and the concentration integration policies officially adopted by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, the case holding that the court below's determination that there was a purpose of defamation against an individual is unlawful

[7] The meaning of "Bribery" and "illegal solicitation" in the crime of offering a third party's offering of a bribe and the criteria for the determination thereof

[8] The case holding that the act that the Do governor received large amount of money from a third party in the form of a welfare foundation's contribution was performed by mediating a broad illegal solicitation in relation to the crime of offering a bribe to a third party in relation to the duties as the Do governor who exercises overall control over the designation of a tourism district and the proceeding

[2] The National Livestock Cooperatives Federation shall not conclude that the act of spending funds necessary for the purposes of the maintenance, management, public relations, etc. of the National Livestock Cooperatives Federation's basic purpose is not independent business activities other than those under Article 123 (1) of the former Livestock Cooperatives Act (repealed by the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, Act No. 6018 of September 7, 199), but not the business activities under Articles 1 and 104 of the same Act, and the act of promoting the fostering of member cooperatives and the promotion of the livestock industry and the improvement of the economic and social status of its members, and the act of spending funds necessary for the purposes of the maintenance, management, public relations, etc. of the National Livestock Cooperatives Federation's organization, which are based on the execution of various projects under Article 123 (1) of the same

[3] The intention of the crime of occupational breach of trust is established in combination with the awareness of the act of occupational breach of trust committed by the person who administers another's business and the intent of the person who acquires property benefits by himself or a third party. In a case where the person who administers another's business denies the criminal intent by asserting that the person committed an act at issue was an act at issue for his own interest, he shall prove it by means of proving indirect facts that have a substantial relation with the intention due to the nature of the object in light of the relevant circumstances.In addition, in a case where the contents, method, and timing of the business operation of various financial institutions in charge of the public role are not specified as one-day under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or specific circumstances, if the contents, method, and time, etc. of the business operation are not specified as one-day under the relevant laws and regulations, the person cannot be held liable solely on the ground that the damage was inflicted on the principal. In determining whether there was an intention of occupational breach of trust to the manager, it shall be limited to the strict interpretation criteria for the crime of breach of trust.

[4] With respect to defamation by publication due to the statement of false facts, where part of another person's speech was introduced in the publication with the intention to criticize another person's speech, and that part of it was emphasized, and where criticism of a somewhat exaggerated or biased content was added as to it, it should not be concluded that only the above part of the factual fact is removed, notwithstanding the whole and objective interpretation of the other person's speech introduced above, unless it is read to be false as a factual market price of the above critical contents.

[5] The public interest as referred to in Article 310 of the Criminal Act includes not only the public interest of the State, the society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a specific social group or a group of its members. If the principal motive or purpose of an actor is for the public interest, the application of Article 310 of the Criminal Act may not be excluded even if there are incidental personal purposes or motives or somewhat insulting expressions in such expressions. Furthermore, as regards public activities or policies of public recognition or public agencies, the monitoring and criticism function should be guaranteed in terms of various rights to know, diverse ideas and ideas, and freedom of speech guaranteeing the exchange of opinions. As such, it should also be considered that the person whose reputation is damaged is public official, as it concerns public interest issues with social character, which must be objectively known to the public, and thus, whether the victim contributed to the formation or public debate of public opinion, and whether the victim gave rise to the risk of defamation expression. Therefore, if it is true or considerable in the case of deeming such public interest issues to be true or true, it should be considered that it constitutes an attack against the public interest in principle.

[6] In a case where the president of the National Livestock Cooperatives Federation published an advertisement that considers the legitimacy of the import chain distribution and sales recommended policy and the integrated policy of concentration, the case holding that the court below's determination that there was a purpose of slandering an individual against the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry is unlawful

[7] In the crime of offering a bribe to a third party under Article 130 of the Criminal Code, the term "illegal solicitation" refers to an unlawful or unjust benefit delivered to a third party by mediating an unlawful solicitation in connection with the public official's duties, and "illegal solicitation" includes not only illegal solicitation but also unfair cases in violation of social rules or the principle of good faith. In determining whether a bribe related to his/her duties is a bribe or an illegal solicitation, the circumstances such as the contents of the solicitation, the relationship with a provider of benefits, the degree of and the timing and timing of giving and receiving benefits, as well as the legal interests protected by the crime of bribery, which is called the fairness of performing his/her duties and the trust in society and the impossibility of performing his/her duties, are also the criteria for determining whether the number of benefits is suspected of being fair in performing his/her duties from the general public. Furthermore, even if the performance of his/her duties subject to a solicitation is not illegal or unjust, it may be deemed to constitute "illegal solicitation", and even if there is no need for specific intent to provide a consideration for performing his/her duties.

[8] The case holding that the Do governor's act of receiving large amounts of money from a third party in the form of a welfare foundation's contribution was made by mediating a broad illegal solicitation in relation to the third party's crime of offering of bribe in relation to the duties as the Do governor who exercises overall control over the designation of a tourism district and the proceeding

1. Judgment on the prosecutor's appeal

A. As to interference with business

In order to constitute a joint principal offender, it is necessary to perform a crime through functional control based on the intention of joint process as a subjective element. The intent of joint process as a subjective element is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime and to accept it without preventing it. It is a single element to commit a specific criminal act with a common intent, and to shift one’s own intent to practice by using another person’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1940, Sept. 30, 1997; 2005Do3352, Jul. 22, 2005). Meanwhile, the Criminal Act refers to any direct and indirect act that facilitates the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing a crime. It is necessary to establish a joint principal offender’s act of aiding and abetting not only tangible and material aiding and abetting but also assist and abetting the principal offender. It is also required to establish a joint principal offender’s act of aiding and abetting up to 2005Do1375, supra.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the decision of the court below to find the defendant not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of crime, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence.

B. As to the violation of the Livestock Industry Cooperatives Act

According to records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, Article 1 of the former Livestock Cooperatives Act (repealed by the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, Act No. 6018, Sept. 7, 199) provides that the purpose of the Act is to promote the balanced development of the national economy by fostering the livestock industry and improving the economic and social status of the members of the two livestock cooperatives by fostering independent cooperatives, and Article 104 of the same Act provides that the National Federation shall aim at promoting the promotion of common interests of member cooperatives and the sound development of the member cooperatives, and that the type of business conducted by the National Federation for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the Act is not a type of business conducted by the member cooperatives or their members of the National Federation and various or non-profit assistance projects for the general public, such as economic or credit business, other business prescribed by other Acts and subordinate statutes, related incidental business, and other incidental business, which are necessary to attain the objectives of the Act. 200 and Article 143 of the same Act provides that the National Federation shall not be subject to the imposition of benefits of the National Federation, but an indirect act within the scope of the National Federation.

In light of the above legal principles and the above provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes, the act of the National Livestock Cooperatives Federation to realize the basic purpose of "the promotion of the fostering of member cooperatives and the promotion of the livestock industry and the members' economic and social status" under Articles 1 and 104 of the same Act, and to disburse funds necessary for the maintenance, management, publicity, etc. of the National Federation based on the implementation of various projects under Article 123 (1) of the same Act shall not be concluded as constituting "the act of using funds for purposes other than those of business" under Article 143 of the same Act, unless there are special circumstances. Thus, the determination of the court below is justified in holding that Defendant 1, etc., who is the National Livestock Cooperatives Federation Chairperson, did not list it with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as an independent business activity other than those under Article 123 (1) of the same Act, and the act of maintaining the establishment purpose of the National Livestock Cooperatives Association, which has independent judicial character, and the act of distributing funds to the National Federation through the examination and resolution of the National Federation and its related grounds for appeal No. 1.

C. As to occupational breach of trust

The intent of the crime of occupational breach of trust is established when the person who deals with another's business causes property damage to the principal and the intent of the manager or a third party is combined with the awareness of the act of occupational breach of trust. In a case where the person who deals with another's business denies the criminal intent by asserting that the person committed the act at issue was an act of his own interest, the person must prove, under the comprehensive consideration of relevant circumstances, indirect facts that have considerable relevance to the intent of the act of occupational breach of trust in light of the nature of the object. In addition, in making management decisions related to financial transactions, if the contents, method, time, etc. of the business performance are not specified as one under statutes or specific circumstances, the person cannot be held liable solely on the ground that the act of occupational breach of trust was caused to the principal. In such a case, determination of whether the manager had the intention of occupational breach of trust, the circumstance and motive leading up to the management judgment at issue, contents of the business subject to the determination, economic situation of the financial institution, probability of loss suffered by the financial institution, etc., are also 200.

The court below acknowledged the facts based on the adopted evidence, such as the management method of mutual financial special accounts and the reasons why Defendant 1 and 2 carried out a reduction in the interest rate of mutual financial funds, and confirmed that there was a criminal intent of breach of trust against the above Defendants on the grounds of its stated reasoning. In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact and determination are just and there is no error in the misapprehension of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The argument that the failure to take the above reduction in the interest rate was made in the grounds of appeal that the failure to take the above reduction measures was intended to induce the support of the member cooperatives on the Integrated Counterup Group, raise the funds of the National Federation of Livestock Cooperatives, and transfer the funds to the National Agricultural Cooperative. Thus, the above argument in the ground of appeal on this basis is not acceptable unless there is any objective evidence to acknowledge the premise of the above

2. Judgment on the appeal concerning defamation by a public prosecutor and Defendant 1’s publication

A. In order to establish defamation by publication due to a statement of false facts as provided in Articles 309(2) and 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the fact alleged by an actor has undermined the social evaluation of the person, and should be false. In determining whether a false fact is a false fact, if the important part is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the alleged fact, it does not constitute a false fact even if there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do4757, Feb. 25, 2002). Therefore, even if a person’s statement was introduced into a publication with the intent to criticize another person’s statement, the part of it should be emphasized, and it should not be concluded that the above part of it should not be removed unless it is read that it is a factual fact with the above introduction, regardless of the overall and objective interpretation of the whole or objective interpretation of the other person’s statement.

Examining the above legal principles in light of the records, it is justified in the judgment of the court below that the defendant sent a copy of the relevant official document to each of the above advertisements as it is, and that part of the official document is extracted, and that the statement of the facts posted is not false, and that the insulting expressions attached thereto do not reach the degree of misunderstanding the interpretation of the whole and objective meaning of the above official document. Therefore, although each of the above advertisements contains a somewhat exaggerated or slanderous expression, the whole contents of the facts stated are true, and thus, the crime of defamation of publications due to a statement of false facts is not established. There is no error of law as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor in the grounds of appeal.

B. The subjective constituent elements of Article 309 of the Criminal Act refer to the intent or purpose of the rash, and this refers to the common interest of Article 310 of the Criminal Act. Since the objective of the rashion is in conflict with the public interest of Article 310 of the Criminal Act, unless there are special circumstances, the purpose of the rashion should be denied. Whether the timely fact pertains to the public interest or not is based on the purpose of the rashion should be determined by comparing and comparing the following: (i) the content and nature of the statement; (ii) the scope of the party to whom the relevant fact was published; and (iii) the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression. Such public interest should also be included not only in the interests of the State, society, and other general public, but also in the interests of a specific social group or its members; (iv) if the main motive or purpose of the offender is for the public interest, it should also be determined that there are considerable public concerns or motive to the public interest of Article 310 of the Criminal Act, namely, public interest or public interest.

According to the evidence and records of the court below, the government announced the "plan for the reform of the Livestock Industry Cooperatives" on March 8, 199, with 400 million won or more for each of the above 5th anniversary of the establishment of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as the first 99. The defendant, who was elected as the National Livestock Cooperatives Federation around July 9, 199, was merely a unilateral restructuring against the basic principles of cooperatives, and eventually led to an integrated movement against the interests of the members of the Livestock Industry Cooperatives (the name of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry omitted) on the following grounds: 1.0 billion won for the 4th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 199.

However, in the case of advertisements on January 12, 200, the contents of which were officially adopted by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry are criticism against policies on the encouragement of distribution and sale of the said products. In addition, the records reveal that the contents of advertisements were introduced as articles the two scams and related organizations' names for the contents of the above official document during several days from January 8 to January 12 of the same year, and that the government must protect both people, as well as that of publishing a critical opinion about the self-defluence of consumption of foreign beef, it can be seen as an issue of public interest. The advertisement of May 2 of the same year is also an institution of public interest with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry's view to the interpretation of the above guidelines, such as the motive and method for public relations among the government and the organizations related to the legitimacy of the centralized integrated policies, and thus, it can be seen that there is no room for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to see that the above guidelines and method of public policy were unlawful.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to “non-purpose” under Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act or “public interest” under Article 310 of the Criminal Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the Defendant’s ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Judgment on the appeal on the offering of a bribe by Defendant 1 to a third party

In the crime of offering of a bribe to a third party under Article 130 of the Criminal Act, the term "illegal solicitation" refers to an unlawful or unfair benefit delivered to a third party by mediating an unlawful solicitation in connection with a public official's official's duties, and "illegal solicitation" includes not only illegal solicitation but also illegal solicitation in violation of social rules or the principle of good faith. Furthermore, in determining whether a bribe constitutes a bribe related to his duties or an illegal solicitation, the circumstances such as the contents of the solicitation, the relationship with the provider of the benefit, the degree and timing of giving and receiving the benefit, etc., and in addition, in light of the fairness of the performance of duties and the protection of the legal interest of the bribery, which is the fairness of performing duties and trust in the society and the impossibility of performing duties, it is also the basis for determining whether the profit can be suspected of the fairness of performing duties from the general public (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Do1911, Jul. 23, 199; 2001Do970, Mar. 15, 2002).

In light of the facts and records duly admitted by the lower court, as seen earlier, Nonindicted 2, an operator of the foregoing non-indicted 1 corporation, did not take into account the following facts: (a) Non-indicted 3, at the time of implementation of the above-mentioned tourism project; (b) Non-indicted 3’s construction of the welfare foundation at around 17 years after the date of establishment of the above business site; (c) Non-indicted 3, a total of KRW 3 billion was contributed to the establishment of the non-indicted 3’s welfare foundation; and (d) a specific development plan was formulated for the ownership of the non-indicted 1 corporation for the purpose of its golf course, etc.; and (e) the non-indicted 1 corporation’s development plan was not implemented at the time of implementation of the above-mentioned tourism project; and (e) the new development plan was implemented at the time of implementation of the above-mentioned tourism foundation’s development plan, including the new development plan, to which a significant portion of the development plan would have been implemented by the competent City/Do.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below which recognized the establishment of the crime of offering of a bribe of 3 billion won is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of offering a bribe of 3 billion won due to the violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rule of experience, incomplete deliberation, etc., the Special Act on the Development of Jeju-do and the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and the third party. Meanwhile, the identity of the facts charged is maintained as it is if the social facts, which form the basis of the facts, are the same in the basic point (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do2156 delivered on December 28, 1982). The defendant's act of offering a bribe of 3 billion won from Non-Indicted 2 in return for solicitation related to his duties, and the facts charged are identical to the facts charged, which are the basis of which are the same as that of the court below's legitimate grounds for appeal that do not affect the conclusion of the judgment below's legitimate grounds for appeal concerning the amendment of the indictment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part convicting Defendant 1 of each charges of defamation by publication against Defendant 1 should be reversed. The appeal against the third party's offering of bribe is without merit, but the part to be reversed and the remaining guilty part are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part of the judgment below against the above defendant is reversed and remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion is all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)