Article 310 of the Criminal Act Scope of Application

The illegality of defamation under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Code is justified when it is true and solely for the public interest. However, defamation through publications under Article 309 of the Criminal Code is obvious in light of the provisions of Article 310 of the Criminal Code, even if it was solely for the public interest.

Articles 309 and 310 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do1547 delivered on September 11, 1984; 85Do785 delivered on May 27, 1986

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Suwon District Court Decision 85No509 delivered on July 3, 1986

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining each evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below compared with the records, it is sufficient to recognize the facts of crime at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts against the rules of evidence as alleged in the process of recognition.

According to the facts established by the court below, it is clear that the defendants posted a book indicating false facts for the purpose of slandering the victim, thereby impairing the reputation of the defendant. The criminal facts against the defendants are not the intent of defamation at the time of the crime of this case, but only the facts recognized by the court below among the responsible persons damaged the reputation of the victim. Thus, criminal facts, etc. are specified in detail, since the defendants damaged the reputation of the victim. The arguments on this issue are without merit.

2. Defamation under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act is true and solely for the public interest, and its illegality is excluded. However, even if the Defendant committed the instant crime in violation of Article 309 of the Criminal Act solely for the public interest, it is obvious that illegality is not dismissed in light of the provisions of Article 310 of the Criminal Act, and thus, an argument cannot be adopted.

3. The crime of this case constitutes a crime of non-competence which cannot be prosecuted against the victim's clearly expressed intention, but since it is evident in the record that the victim withdraws his wish to punish after the decision of the court of first instance was submitted to the appellate court, it is just that the court below did not recognize the effect of withdrawal of wish to punish as a declaration of wish to punish, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle of Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Act, and therefore, it is groundless

4. In this case where the defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment or 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor, it is not a legitimate ground of appeal to deem the amount of punishment unreasonable.

The issue is groundless.

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

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)

No signature or seal shall be affixed to an overseas business trip. A leaps shall be affixed thereto.