(a) The case holding that a speech made to criticize a candidate at the joint speech place for the local council members of the local council does not constitute a “statement of fact” as referred to in Article 177 (1) of the Act;

(b) The case holding that the illegality of a speech that criticizes a candidate made at the joint speech meeting place of a local council member is excluded as an act which is reasonable to the extent permissible by social norms;

(a) The case holding that a statement to criticize a candidate at the joint speech place of a local council member does not constitute a “statement of fact” as referred to in Article 177(1) of the Act on the part of a candidate for the election of the local council members;

(b) The case holding that the illegality of a statement to the effect that a candidate at the joint speech place for an election of a local council member is excluded as an act that has a reasonable nature to the extent permissible by social norms.

(a)Article 177(1) of the Local Council Election Act;

A

Prosecutor

Busan High Court Decision 92No215 delivered on June 17, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The statement of fact means a statement of fact sufficient to undermine the social value or evaluation of a person, so it does not constitute a mere abstract judgment that is not a specific fact. As such, in the Defendant’s joint speech room, the statement of fact referred to in Article 177(1) of the Act on the Election of Local Council Members means a person who is infected with satisfying and slandering any snow or snow for his own purpose. In order to do so, it shall not be elected as a member of the local autonomy system or local development from time to time, and it shall not be deemed that the Defendant is an abstract judgment on the morality held against the above B, but it shall not be deemed a statement of specific fact in the crime of defamation against the above candidate.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law as otherwise pointed out.

In addition, as determined by the court below, if the above B made a statement to the effect that it will not commit any act such as slandering the party even if it was withdrawn from the c party upon the application for the c party nomination, and that it was withdrawn from the c party, and the defendant went to the c party without his command, and the defendant provided money to get the success of the c party at the first joint speech meeting, and the defendant made a statement to the effect that "the above B was erroneous in the process of the c party's success because he was active as the c party's worker at Busan City, and went to the c party's office, and went to the c party from the c party's office and went to the c party's office, the above act is a fluent slander, but it is argued that the c party's official election system has been damaged, but it is nothing more than the c party's act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in all the above facts.

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