2015Do15619 Defamation

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants and Prosecutor (Defendants)

Law Firm U&A (For the defendant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Daejeon District Court Decision 2015No569 Decided September 16, 2015

December 30, 2020

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As a constituent element of the crime of defamation of the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, performance refers to “a state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized.” Even if a statement of fact was made to a minority person individually, performance is recognized even in cases where the other party is likely to spread the facts indicated to an unspecified or many unspecified persons. In order to recognize a performance of an individual minority’s speech on the grounds of the possibility of spreading it to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, it is insufficient to say that there is a possibility that it may be disseminated in a way that is difficult, high possibility or probable, and prosecutor’s strict certification is required. In particular, if the other party to the statement is a public official or a similar position that should maintain the duty of confidentiality or maintain confidentiality, performance is denied as a case where the other party to the statement is considerably expected to have a high level of secret security due to such relationship or status, and in order to recognize performance, there are special circumstances to deem that it can be disseminated to an unspecified or unspecified person (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 202Do581

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendants and the victims were aware of the fact of defamation on April 19, 2013 of the facts charged in the instant case that: (a) the Defendants and the victims were Gyeonggi-do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do, which violated the self-regulation regulations; (b) delivered the company’s internal review and report to the Nonindicted Party, who is the recipient employee of the said company; and (c) the victim took disciplinary action against the company in violation of the self-regulation regulations; (d) but the request was based on false facts; (e) the victim took measures to prohibit access to the golf course; and (e) it was recognized that the Defendants sent it to the said company through the Nonindicted Party by pointing out false facts about the victim; and (e) thus, the Defendants submitted a written request to the person in charge to request the prohibition of access to the golf course; and (e) thus, determined the Defendants not guilty on the ground that the false facts indicated by

Examining the facts established by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the public performance of defamation, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal, defamation should be deemed to have been destroyed even if the Defendants were not aware of the fact allegedly by an unspecified or many unspecified persons as an abstract dangerous offender (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2020Do5813, Mar. 23, 1993). Even if the other party to the statement already known, it cannot be deemed that there is no possibility of spreading a performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do455, Mar. 23, 1993).

On June 18, 2013, among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ act of defamation constituted a crime of defamation even if the content of defamation was a flexible action among the dynamics, if the Defendants made materials for signature that revealed false facts about the victim and read them to several persons, and even if they received signature, it constitutes a situation in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized.

Examining the facts established by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the public performance of defamation, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. In addition, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on false facts

3. Conclusion

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

Supreme Court Decision 201

Justices Kim Jae-in

Justices Min Il-young in charge

Justices Lee Jae-hwan