[명예훼손,상해][공1987.7.1.(803),1018]
A. The legal interest in the crime of defamation and insult and the standard for distinguishing it from that of defamation;
B. Whether simple abusive theory constitutes defamation
A. There is no difference between the crime of defamation and insult in terms of the so-called external reputation, which is a social evaluation of human value. However, defamation is not a specific fact, but a mere abstract judgment or an sacrific sentiment, which is an expression of a specific fact that may undermine a person’s social evaluation, and is different from the offense of insult that lowers social evaluation, rather than a specific fact.
(b) The Defendant’s statement that “the aged and the older years have come to flick,” referred to as “I am special,” itself, rather than the statement of specific facts that could undermine the victim’s social evaluation, is merely a hambling expression that the Defendant emphasizes hamblingly about the victim’s morality, and it cannot be considered as defamation.
Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act
Defendant
Defendant
Chuncheon District Court Decision 86No382 delivered on March 5, 1987
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.
We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.
First, as to the injury:
Comprehensively taking account of the evidence in the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of an injury to the defendant's judgment is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no ground to hold that there is no violation of the rules of evidence.
As to the following defamation:
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the court below recognized that the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by stating that "the aged and the older people have lost their match quality," and applied the defamation crime under Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act to the defendant in public performance as stated in its reasoning.
However, there is no difference between the crime of defamation and insult in terms of the so-called external reputation, which is a social evaluation of the value of a person. However, defamation requires defamation by publicly alleging specific facts that may undermine a person's social evaluation, which is not specific facts, but rather a simple abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment, which impairs social evaluation.
In light of the records, it is doubtful whether the defendant's statement about the victim's speech itself is not merely an exaggeration of the victim's sexuality, rather than an expression of specific facts that could undermine the social evaluation of the victim's above.
Therefore, the lower court, which committed the crime of defamation, committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on defamation.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)