[1] The meaning of and criteria for determining "a statement of fact," which constitutes the elements of defamation, and freedom of religious criticism

[2] The case holding that the crime of defamation is committed on the ground that criticism against a certain religious group's pastor is merely an expression of opinion, and it is difficult to regard it as a statement of fact, and it does not constitute defamation that may infringe on social values or evaluation

[1] Article 307 of the Criminal Act, Article 20 of the Constitution / [2] Article 307 of the Criminal Act, Article 20 of the Constitution

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da19246, 19253 delivered on September 6, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2983), Supreme Court Decision 96Do2910 delivered on April 25, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1689), Supreme Court Decision 98Do2188 delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 885 delivered on June 24, 2003), Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1868 delivered on June 24, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 16555), Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4573 delivered on June 15, 2007

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Law Firm Roice, Attorneys Yang Ho-pon et al.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2006No621 Decided August 10, 2006

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The crime of defamation requires a statement of fact to be established. The term "statement of fact" means a statement of opinion that represents an expression of opinion containing a value judgment or evaluation, which refers to a report or statement of specific past or present facts in time and space, which can be proved by evidence. The distinction between whether a statement of fact or opinion is a fact or an opinion shall be made by taking into account the ordinary meaning and usage of language, possibility of proof, context in which the expression in question is used, social circumstances in which the expression was made, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do2910, Apr. 25, 1997; 98Do2188, Feb. 25, 200; 2007Do2824, Sept. 21, 2007; 2007Do2824, Apr. 26, 2007; 2006). The publicly alleged facts should also be guaranteed to the extent that there is a possibility of infringing on a specific person's social value or freedom.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the part of the printed article of this case, "Non-indicted 1", "Non-indicted 1", and "Non-indicted 1 stated that it stated that it constitutes pure opinion or comment based on the subjective religious and religious analysis of the defendants, and "the non-indicted 1 attempted to attack sexual intercourse and impleate it with his own identity," or "the non-indicted 1 attempted to remove only his own identity, by preventing the non-indicted 1's attempt to commit acts of attacking the sexual intercourse" or "the non-indicted 1's city that is created by this team and to protect our family and children" or the part of the "non-indicted 1's opinion or opinion that it does not constitute a violation of the rules of evidence," such as "non-indicted 1's opinion or opinion that it does not constitute a violation of the rules of evidence," and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the public opinion or evaluation of the facts in the context of defamation."

Therefore, all of the Prosecutor’s appeals against the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)