[1] The meaning of "the case concerning the public interest", which is a requirement for the exclusion of illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Code, and the standard for its determination

[2] The burden of proving the illegality of the crime of defamation

[3] The meaning of "act which does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Code, and the elements for establishing the act of a political party

[4] The case holding that an act of publishing a letter on the website of a member of the National Assembly, a press organization, another pharmaceutical company, etc. does not fall under Articles 310 and 20 of the Criminal Act, by preparing an article that represents a particular pharmaceutical company

[1] Article 310 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 310 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 20 of the Criminal Act / [4] Articles 20 and 310 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Do1473 delivered on October 25, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3491) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 97Do158 delivered on October 9, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2715), Supreme Court Decision 9Do1543 delivered on June 8, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 1437), Supreme Court Decision 9Do3048 delivered on February 11, 200 (Gong200Sang, 740Sang, 2009) 209Do29398 delivered on February 25, 2005 (Gong2009 and 740 delivered on February 25, 200)

Defendant

Defendant

Ulsan District Court Decision 2003No572 delivered on February 6, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 6

The argument that it is improper to institute a prosecution only against the defendant even though the victim non-indicted corporation should be punished as a crime of accusation, and the argument that the sentencing of the court below is improper cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal in light of the purport of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 7

In Article 310 of the Criminal Code, "the time when the publicly alleged facts relate to the public interest" means the time when the publicly alleged facts are objectively seen, and an actor is also required to state the facts for the public interest subjectively. It includes not only the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a specific social group or its entire members. Whether the publicly alleged facts relate to the public interest or not shall be determined by comparing and comparing the contents and nature of the publicly alleged facts, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant facts were publicly announced, the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do158, Oct. 9, 1998; 2003Do3606, Nov. 13, 2003).

On the other hand, in order for an act that defames a person by openly pointing out facts to be subject to punishment due to the elimination of illegality in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act, the actor must prove that it is true facts and solely for the public interest (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1473, Oct. 25, 1996). If the court duly adopted and investigated evidence and examined the evidence, and if the requirements for the reason for the exclusion of illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act are not proven, the disadvantage of the defendant is borne by the defendant.

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은, 피고인이 적시한 사실의 요지는 '피고인은 공소외 주식회사과 상품공급계약을 체결하고 공소외 주식회사으로부터 제품을 공급받아 판매하여 왔는데 공소외 주식회사가 거래 대리점들과 충분한 상의 없이 제일제당에 그 제품의 판매권을 넘기고 불공정한 약관을 들어 피고인과의 계약을 일방적으로 해지하였고, 피고인이 이에 항의하면서 민원을 제기하자 공소외 주식회사에서 피고인을 회유하려고 하였으나 피고인이 이에 응하지 아니하자, 다른 대리점들을 상대로 그들의 약점을 이용하여 굴복시킨 후, 피고인에게는 괘씸죄를 씌워 피고인이 담보로 제공한 재산에 강제경매를 신청하는 등 공소외 주식회사는 밀실정책의 대표 회사이고, 인간의 최소한의 양심과 도덕성은 하수구에 처박아 넣은 지 오래되었으며, 지켜야 할 법도 저버리면서까지 같이 살아가야 하는 공생의 법칙도 어기고 공소외 주식회사만의 이익을 위해서 상대방을 배려하는 모습은 어디에도 찾을 수 없다.'라는 것이고, 한편 피고인은 위와 같은 내용의 글을 국회의원이나 언론사, 다른 제약회사 등 11곳의 홈페이지에 게재하였다는 것으로서, 피고인이 작성하여 게재한 글의 내용이 진실한 사실로서 공소외 주식회사의 시정되어야 할 부분이 일부 포함되어 있기는 하나, 공소외 주식회사를 비방하는 취지가 그 내용의 주조를 이루고 있는 점, 위 사건과 관련되어 있는 자들뿐만 아니라 불특정 다수인들이 볼 수 있는 정치인이나 언론사 또는 위 공소외 주식회사와 경쟁관계에 있는 다른 제약회사의 홈페이지에 게재한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 피고인이 위와 같은 내용의 글을 게재한 것이 형법 제310조 소정의 오로지 공공의 이익에 관한 때에 해당한다고 할 수는 없다고 판단하였는바, 기록과 위에서 본 법리에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심의 위와 같은 사실인정과 판단은 정당한 것으로 수긍이 가고, 거기에 주장과 같은 법리오해의 위법이 있음을 찾아볼 수 없다.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

"Acts which do not violate social norms" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to acts which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms, and which act is legitimate in violation of social norms and thus, it should be judged individually by considering and reasonably the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the third protected interests and infringed interests, the fourth urgency, and the fifth supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Do1764, Oct. 28, 1986; 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is difficult to view that the above act of the defendant is reasonable in its means and method, and it cannot be viewed as a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms since such Internet publication was an urgent and inevitable means. In light of the records and the legal principles as seen above, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is not found that there was an error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as argued.

4. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and 5

The freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution may be restricted by law if necessary for national security, maintenance of order, and public welfare (Article 37(2) of the Constitution). As long as each act of the Defendant constitutes defamation, it cannot be viewed as infringing on the freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution. The assertion that the Defendant’s criminal act of this case goes against the principle of equality compared with the report of facts by the press.

5. Conclusion

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

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)