[1] The elements for establishing the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, and the standard for determining whether the crime constitutes “false facts”

[2] Whether Article 310 of the Criminal Act can be applied to the act falling under the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts (negative)

[3] The meaning of "private document concerning a certificate of fact that proves an important fact in transaction" and the standard for determining whether the crime of preparing qualification documents and uttering of qualification documents constitutes such a crime

[1] Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Code / [2] Articles 307 (2) and 310 of the Criminal Code / [3] Articles 232 and 234 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2137 Decided April 29, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 882), Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6322 Decided July 13, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2011Do147 Decided June 10, 201 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Do234 Decided April 13, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1423), Supreme Court Decision 99Do3213 Decided October 222, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2451) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8527 Decided April 23, 2009

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2009No1093 Decided February 9, 2010

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to interference with business and defamation

A. In order to establish the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the criminal must publicly make a statement of fact, and the fact should be a fall under the social evaluation of a person. In a case where the important part here is consistent with the objective fact, even if there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression in detail, it shall not be deemed a false fact. However, in determining whether a false fact is a false fact, it shall be determined whether the part that is not consistent with the objective fact is an important part by examining the overall purport of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2137, Apr. 29, 2005). In addition, Article 310 of the Criminal Act regarding the defamation by publicly alleging false facts is not applicable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do2344, Apr. 13, 1993).

The court below held that, in light of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, since the amount of the contribution of the association members decided by the Management and Disposal Assembly of November 20, 2004 was calculated by including the revenue of 14 general apartment units in the total sales revenue of the union, even if the union acquired the revenue of the general apartment units later, it is not possible for the defendants to reduce the amount of the contribution originally decided, even if the union acquired it later, the court below held that the defendants' preparation of each notice stating that "the defendants can further reduce the amount of the contribution of the union members by finding the revenue of 14 general apartment units," and that the defendants' distribution to the union members interfere with the affairs of non-indicted 1 by publicly expressing and spreading false facts, thereby impairing the reputation of the victim non-indicted 2 at the same time, and there is no reasonable reason to believe the contents of the notice as true, and therefore, it does not constitute a tort under Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below 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 principles as to the establishment of defamation or

B. Defendant 1 and 3 asserted that Nonindicted 1 cannot be the object of the crime of interference with business because they were not qualified as the chief executive officer of the association.

However, the above argument in the grounds of appeal is without merit, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal, as it is alleged in the grounds of appeal that the above defendants did not consider it as grounds of appeal or are subject to ex officio determination

2. As to the preparation of qualification-based private documents and the display of qualification-based private documents

A private document which is the object of the crime of preparing qualification documents and the crime of uttering of qualification documents refers to the document or drawing another person's document concerning rights, obligations or certification of fact, and the document related to rights and obligations refers to a document stating matters concerning the creation, modification, or extinction of rights and obligations. Documents related to certification of fact refers to documents other than documents pertaining to rights and obligations, which prove facts important in the transaction. In addition, documents certifying facts related to transaction refer to not only documents, the main purpose of which is to prove the process before and after the occurrence, continuation, modification, or extinction of legal relations, but also documents, the contents of which can include a declaration of intention that may substantially affect the change of rights and obligations only indirectly in a direct legal relationship. Whether the document falls under the case should be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the title of documents, but also the intention of the person who prepares the document, the summary situation of the document prepared, the matters stated in the document, and the relation with the intended exercise of rights and obligations, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5278, Apr. 23, 2009).

The lower court determined that, in light of the circumstances as indicated in its holding based on the adopted evidence, Defendant 2 was not in the position of acting as the head of an association at the time when he sent a notice of August 15, 2007, and the above Defendant was aware of this fact, and that the above notice constitutes “documents concerning qualification and qualification” as the object of the preparation of a private document and certification of facts, on the grounds that the content of a declaration of intent that may directly and indirectly affect the rights and obligations of the association members and the legal disputes between the association members and the association executives.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)