[2] The case holding that illegality is recognized beyond the limit of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution in light of the party who distributed a leaflet distributed by the defendant, the expression of a literature, etc.

Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that "All citizens shall enjoy freedom of religion." The freedom of religion includes the freedom of mission to promote a religion that one's own belief and to identify new believerss, and the freedom of mission also includes the freedom to criticize other religions or to recommend other believerss to open to another religion. The freedom of mission is subject to protection of freedom of expression at the same time. However, in such a case, Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea on freedom of religion has the nature of special provisions as to Article 21 (1) of the Constitution on freedom of expression. Thus, in the case of media and publication for religious purposes, it shall be more guaranteed than other general press and publication (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da196Da19246, 19253 delivered on September 6, 196).

For the purpose of not punishing a person by publicly pointing out facts pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, an act of impairing a person’s reputation should be objectively deemed to be related to the public interest, and an actor should also indicate such fact for the public interest. Here, “public interest” includes not only the interests of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a specific social group or a group of its members. Whether a publicly alleged fact concerns public interest or not is determined by comparing and comparing the contents and nature of the publicly alleged fact, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of a person’s reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression. If the principal motive or purpose of the actor is for the public interest, the application of Article 310 of the Criminal Act may not be excluded even if other private interest or motive is published (see Supreme Court Decision 203Do3606, Nov. 13, 2003).

The lower court determined that the Defendant’s crime of this case was unlawful as it goes beyond the limit of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution in light of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s act of committing the crime of this case, in light of the distribution counterpart and the expression

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to religious criticism permitted socially, or in violation of the rules of evidence.

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)