[2] The case holding that the illegality of defamation cannot be viewed as a statement of facts for the public interest, and therefore the illegality of defamation act is not dismissed

[2] The case holding that the act of impairing the reputation of the above representative director cannot be deemed as a statement of fact for the public interest, and its illegality is not dismissed, since it cannot be seen that the act of damaging the reputation of the above representative director is a statement of fact for the public interest by repeatedly using a banner and scloet as one of the methods for obtaining the concession in the group negotiation and repeatedly using a loudspeaker with the loudspeaker

Article 310 of the Criminal Code provides that "when the publicly alleged facts relate to the public interest" refers to the publicly alleged facts, and the facts should be stated for the public interest subjectively. It includes not only the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a specific social group or its entire members. Whether the publicly alleged facts relate to the public interest or not should be determined by comparing and comparing the contents and nature of the publicly alleged facts, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant facts were publicly announced, the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do158 delivered on October 9, 1998).

Examining the evidence adopted by the court of first instance by the court below in light of the records, the defendant and other employees of the above company as one of the methods for obtaining a concession from group negotiations with pressure to the victim, the representative director of the non-indicted corporation, and the president of the non-indicted corporation, "the president of the president of the non-indicted corporation," and "the president of the victim of the malicious business taking labor wages into consideration each other," and "the president of the victim of the malicious business who sexual intercourses with the defendant," and repeats the above contents by repeatedly using a loudspeaker, and repeating the above contents against many unspecified and unspecified players, and thereby damaging the reputation of the victim. In light of the motive and purpose of the above act of this case by the defendant, and the scope of the other party's announcement of the pertinent fact, the act of the defendant's judgment cannot be deemed to have been publicly announced for the public interest.

In the same purport, the court below is justified in finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged of defamation, and the court below did not properly deliberate as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal and did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for excluding illegality of defamation.

In addition, examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, each act of the defendant in this case cannot be deemed to be an act of creating autonomous negotiations between labor and management for the improvement of working conditions, and there is no legitimacy in the means and methods. Therefore, the judgment of the court below does not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the workers' legitimate scope of activities, as otherwise

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, with different cases and purport.

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

Justices Park Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)