[1] The meaning of "the case concerning the public interest" under Article 310 of the Criminal Code and the criteria for its determination

[2] The case holding that the criticism of the number of other pastors in favor of a specific pastors of the religious order sent to the pastors in the religious order constitutes "the time when it comes to the public interest" under Article 310 of the Criminal Act and "the time when it comes to public interest"

[1] Article 310 of the Criminal Code provides that "the act under Article 307 (1) shall not be punished if it is true and solely for the public interest." Thus, even if a person damages a person's reputation by openly pointing out a fact, if the fact is related to the public interest and it is proved that it is true if the fact is stated for the public interest for the purpose of public interest, and if it is proved that it is true, the act is not punishable." Article 310 of the Criminal Code refers to the public interest when it is objectively viewed that the stated fact is related to the public interest, and it must be expressed subjectively for the public interest. It includes not only the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a particular social group or its members, and whether the stated fact concerns the public interest, if it is related to the expression itself such as the contents and nature of the alleged fact, the scope of the other party to which the publication of the fact was made, the method of expression itself, and it can not be compared with or excluded from the motive or purpose of the public interest.

[2] The case holding that the criticism of the number of other pastors in favor of a specific pastors of the religious order sent to the pastors in the religious order constitutes "the time for the public interest" under Article 310 of the Criminal Code and "the time for the public interest"

[1] Articles 307 and 310 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 307 and 310 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Do899 delivered on February 14, 1989 (Gong1989, 445), Supreme Court Decision 94Do1942 delivered on November 10, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3961), Supreme Court Decision 95Do1473 delivered on October 25, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3491), Supreme Court Decision 97Do8 delivered on April 11, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1516), Supreme Court Decision 96Da17257 delivered on July 14, 198 (Gong198Ha, 2108), Supreme Court Decision 97Do19758 delivered on October 15, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2108)

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Busan District Court Decision 98No3803 delivered on March 26, 1999

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The summary of the instant facts charged is as follows.

On September 1, 1997, the Defendants conspired to express their own face at the 0th printing office of Busan Seo-gu, Busan, and the Doggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

2. The judgment of the court below on the defendants' assertion of illegality rejection

The defendants' defense counsel argued that the above acts of the defendants are true facts and solely for the public interest, and therefore, they are not illegal. The first instance court rejected the defendants' defense counsel's defense counsel's assertion on the following grounds: the defendants' assertion that the acts of the defendants are true and only for the public interest, and that the acts of the defendants were committed in the personal motive to prevent the defendants from passing at the assembly of a religious order. In addition, the first instance court affirmed the defendants' appeal on the grounds that the expressions of this case, like the above charges recognized by the first instance court, are highly likely to infringe upon the methods of expression directly stating the victims' names and the victim's reputation damaged thereby.

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

Article 310 of the Criminal Act provides that "an act under Article 307 (1) shall not be punishable if it is true and solely for the public interest." Thus, even if a person defames a person by publicly alleging a fact, if the fact is related to the public interest and if it is proved that the fact is true and correct for the purpose of above-mentioned, it shall not be punished." Thus, "when it comes to the public interest" in Article 310 of the Criminal Act refers to the public interest when it appears objectively, and an actor must state such fact for the public interest subjectively. It includes not only the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also the public interest and interest of a particular social group or its members. Whether the alleged fact concerns the public interest, it shall be determined by comparing it with the contents and nature of the alleged fact, the scope of the other party to whom the fact was published, and the method of expression itself, and if it is proved that such fact is true, it shall not be subject to punishment, it shall not be subject to punishment.

Therefore, in view of the objective view of the expression of this case, the following facts may be acknowledged by examining whether the Defendants, an actor, expressed the facts for the public interest subjectively, and comparing the relevant evidence with the record.

Both the Defendants and Nonindicted Party 1 shall be the pastors belonging to the Korean War Veterans Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean War Veterans Association"). The Korean War Veterans Association shall be composed of the members of the Korean War Veterans Association, and the members of the Korean War Veterans Association shall be the representatives of the Korean War Veterans Association. Article 11 of the Regulations of the Korean War Veterans Association provides that "The members of the Korean War Veterans Association shall be established in order to start up and take out the trade persons. The regulations of the Korean War Veterans Association shall separately be established." Article 1 (1) of the Regulations of the Korean War Veterans Association, which was enacted pursuant to the above provisions, provides that "The Regulations of the Korean War Veterans Association shall be separately established." Article 1 (1) of the Regulations of the Korean War Veterans Association, which is a graduate of the Korean War Veterans Association (new graduate schools) in the capacity of the members of the Korean War Veterans Association, and that the Korean War Veterans Association shall be composed of three or more years of absence from the Korean church after the previous War Veterans Association, which does not exceed three years of the Regulations of the Korean Council.

On the other hand, according to the rules of the Korean Association and the rules of the local council of the Korean Association, the disciplinary action against members of the Korean Association shall be resolved by the local council of the Korean Association and reported to the local council of the Korean Association of the Korean Association, and the general council of the Korean Association of the Korean Association shall finally make a decision on disciplinary action.

around April 196, Non-Indicted 1 was in the time of the public announcement of scambling as a Korean Warman. However, Non-Indicted 1, on the grounds of the above behavior of Non-Indicted 1, the officer of the Korea Gmar Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Local Gmar Association”) tried to make Nonindicted 1 appear at the local meeting to make it impossible for the local chairperson to take a disciplinary action against Non-Indicted 1, who was in the public announcement of scambling, until Non-Indicted 1 appeared to have an explicit attitude on the operation during the scambling practice of the local meeting, and who was in the public announcement of the scambling practice of the scambling of the scambling of the scambling of the scambling of the scambling of the scambling of Non-Indicted 1 until Non-Indicted 1 scambling scambling scambling.

However, Nonindicted Party 1 received the case on July 6 of the same year.

Meanwhile, around that time, the executive officers of the local council and the monthly council raised the problem that Nonindicted 3 was not eligible to take the time of publication of the pastors of the Korea Gamblings Association due to the problem of Nonindicted 3’s academic background, but the local council, however, had Nonindicted 3 undergo a tree case after taking Nonindicted 3 as the public announcement of the pastors.

Defendant 2 was responsible for the general affairs of the local council, Defendant 1’s clerk, and Defendant 3’s head of the local council, but the local council’s head of the juvenile group was at issue. As such, Defendant 2 resigned from the position of executive officers of the local council and declared withdrawal from the local council on July 29 of the same year, asserting that Defendant 2 resigned from the local council, and that Defendant 3 left the local council.

On May 12, 1997, the monthly meeting of the local council reported the resolution of disciplinary action against the defendants who are expelled from the religious order to the general meeting of the Korean bed Assembly. On August 14, 1997, the 8th executive meeting of the Korea bed and decided that the disciplinary action against the defendants requested by the local council at the 8th executive meeting of the Korea bed and dealt with the investigation committee. On September 2, 1999, the 9th executive meeting of the Korean bed and decided that the disciplinary action against the defendants should be submitted to the general meeting after receiving the report from the inspectors.

In addition to the instant printed matter, the Defendants alleged that ① Nonindicted 3 had illegally taken the place of Nonindicted 3 by the local deliberation committee (the chairman of the local deliberation committee, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 7) without meeting the academic background standards for pastors set forth in the general assembly agreement and the rules of the local council on the instant printed matter, ② Nonindicted 3 had the local deliberation committee’s possession of Nonindicted 3 as a public announcement of the religious order; ② around June 1996, the local deliberation committee of the local council of the religious order issued a public announcement of the separation nature; ② Nonindicted 6 had the public announcement of the fact that the Dambian movement against the authoritative religious order was the participants in the Dambian Movement; rather, Nonindicted 6 had the Defendants posted the instant religious order to the local committee without attracting Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 5 to take corrective measures against the officers of the local deliberation; and ③ had the Defendants posted the instant religious order to the local committee without inducing them to take corrective measures.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances leading to the instant expressive act and the overall contents of the instant printed matter, the Defendants may be deemed to have engaged in the instant expressive act in order to be exempted from the disciplinary action against the Defendants. However, on the other hand, the instant expressive act may be deemed as an act for the sake of public interest by publicly announcing the provisions of the local council’s bylaws to the local council or its members, and thus, it is objectively viewed that the alleged facts relate to a specific social group of the members of the Korean council or local council, or a specific group of its members, who are the members of the local council or local council, and the public interest is related to the interests of the general public. In determining objectively in light of the details and nature of the alleged facts, such act by the Defendants may be deemed to be an act for the sake of enhancing the order of the Korean council or local council by publicly announcing the matters pointed out in the instant printed matter to the members of the local council as the representatives of the Korean council’s general meeting, and even if there is no motive for the Defendants’ personal interests to be distributed, it cannot be deemed as an act for the Defendants’ personal interests.

Meanwhile, according to the records, the facts alleged in Nonindicted 1’s speech and behavior are deemed to have been proved to be true by both Nonindicted 1 himself/herself, such as recognizing that it is true. Of the instant expressions, the expression “non-Indicted 1’s speech and behavior not to be contained in his/her entrance” or “non-personal and non-discriminatory behavior” is merely an expression of the Defendants’ assessment or opinion as to the alleged facts on the premise, and it is difficult to view that other facts other than the facts as to the horses and actions of Nonindicted 1 already indicated on the premise are explicitly expressed.

Ultimately, the Defendants’ act of expression in this case is stipulated in Article 310 of the Criminal Act, and it should be deemed that the publicly alleged facts constitute only the case of public interest as a true fact. Nevertheless, solely on the ground that the facts alleged in the first instance court are true and not only the case of public interest, and thus, punishing the Defendants as a crime of defamation is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the elimination of illegality in the crime of defamation, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment. There is a reason to point this out.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)