The comments of this case are merely a presentation of the loyalty opinion of the Defendant that the victim is evading the military defense as a person who is unable to perform the duty of national defense, and that the victim did not evade the military defense, and as soon as possible, cannot be deemed to have indicated the facts.

B. The victim, in common, expressed publicly the negative position on military service by stating that “a person who claims and acts against the military forces, who is subject to the military training, will be informed of the fact that he would be subject to the military training,” and thus, under the assessment of “a person who claims and acts unique to the military forces,” it cannot be deemed that the social assessment of the victim was lowered by the comments in this case.

C. The victim expressed his dissenting opinion that it is not reasonable to ask the victim to attend the Jeju groundwater increase issue on behalf of residents in the village as the head of the village, because the victim often participated in the regional pending issues, such as the Jeju groundwater increase in water supply, etc. while working as a social organization. Since the parent of the victim has a concern about the military problem of the victim, it cannot be said that there was a purpose of slandering the victim, since the victim took up the comments of this case on the victim's behalf of residents in the village as the head of the village.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of defamation as to whether a statement of fact exists, the term “statement of fact” refers to a report or statement on specific past or present facts in time and space, and the contents of the statement can be proven by evidence. The term “statement of fact” refers to a statement of fact or statement of opinion, which is replaced by a statement of value judgment or evaluation. If a report or statement of fact is distinguished from whether it is a fact or an opinion, it is a language.