[1] Criteria for determining whether a certain expressive act constitutes a statement of defamation

[2] 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”

[3] The meaning and method of determining "the purpose of slandering people" under Article 309 (2) of the Criminal Code

[4] Criteria for determining the subjective elements of defamation

[1] Article 307 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Code / [3] Article 309 (2) of the Criminal Code / [4] Articles 307 and 309 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Do2188 delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 885) Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1868 Delivered on June 24, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1655) Supreme Court Decision 2006Do648 Delivered on August 25, 2006 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Do3213 Delivered on October 22, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2451), Supreme Court Decision 99Do4757 Delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong200Sang, 906) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do63648 delivered on December 26, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2006Do63084 delivered on June 26, 2006)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Gyeong-hee et al.

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2006No144 decided September 5, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where a certain expressive act becomes a problem in connection with defamation, whether the expression is a statement of fact or simply an expression of opinion or comment, or if an expression of opinion or comment is made at the same time, the distinction between whether or not it expresses a fact that constitutes the premise should be determined based on the ordinary meaning of words used in the expression, the overall flow of expression, the connection method of expression, etc. In addition, the determination on the basis of the objective contents of the relevant expression, as well as the ordinary meaning of words used in the expression under the premise that the general public communicates with the expression at the ordinary level of care, as well as the social flow, etc., which form a broad context or background, should also be taken into account (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Do2188, Feb. 25, 200; 203Do1868, Jun. 24, 2003; 2006Do6486, Aug. 25, 2006).

Meanwhile, in order for the crime of defamation to be established by a false fact under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the criminal must publicly indicate the fact, and the fact should have undermined people's social evaluation, and be false, and the criminal should have recognized such fact as false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4757, Feb. 25, 200). If the important part here is consistent with objective facts, even if there is a little difference from truth or somewhat exaggerated expression, it cannot be viewed as false. However, in determining whether it is a false fact, it shall be determined whether the part that is not consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the publicly alleged fact, and whether it is an important part that is not consistent with objective facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2137, Apr. 29, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on its adopted evidence: the defendant, as a joint representative of the University Normalization Promotion Committee and the former president of the University, posted newspaper advertisements as stated in its reasoning in daily newspapers on October 5, 2004; the above newspaper advertisements prohibit the sale of school fundamental property in the relevant statutes; and further, even though the basic property of the above university was prepared and maintained by the founder in their own effort, the above school juristic person (name omitted) president of the university sells the basic property of the above university by law and concealing the fact that the victim, who is the principal of the school juristic person (name omitted), is developing the above university through the construction of the main multi-family apartment, rather than by promoting the development of the above university to the local government, including the fact that the victim's act is being affected objectively by the construction of the main multi-family apartment, and thus, the statement in such newspaper advertisements constitutes an objective statement of facts, not a mere expression of opinion, and thus, are inconsistent with the objective facts, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence selection of facts as to the judgment.

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

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)