[1] Criteria for determining whether the alleged facts are false in the crime of defamation

[2] The case holding that since the important part of a monthly article is consistent with objective facts, but the title of the article is merely an exaggeration or a non-relicative expression, it cannot be deemed that the entire article made a false statement

[1] Articles 307(2) and 309(2) of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 307(2) and 309(2) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do3213 decided Oct. 22, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 2715), Supreme Court Decision 99Do4757 decided Feb. 25, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 906)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 2003No6126 delivered on October 14, 2003

The appeal is dismissed.

In determining whether a publicly alleged fact is a false fact in the crime of defamation, even if there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression in detailed (detailed) when examining the overall purport of the publicly alleged fact, it cannot be viewed as a false fact (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do4757 delivered on February 25, 200).

In light of the adopted evidence, the court below held that the victim, who is a transportation company, was not guilty on the ground that the victim did not pay the above defendant 1's total amount of 6,13,800 won on behalf of the above defendant during the period from October 1997 to October 30, 200, since the victim did not pay the above defendant 6,113,80 won on behalf of the above defendant, the victim did not pay the above defendant for the damages for delay calculated at 25% per annum of the agreed interest rate of 12% per annum of the above defendant, the court below rejected the court below's determination that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as stated in the judgment of the court below since the victim did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to "the total amount of damages for delay calculated at 12% per annum of the agreed interest rate of 6,493,160 won per annum of the principal,13,180 won per annum of the above article or damages for delay as stated in the above."

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

Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)