The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The Defendants are not guilty.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the contents of each notice posted by the Defendants are false facts. It is sufficiently recognized that the Defendants, who publicly participated in the 5.18 Democratization Movement by revealing false facts through an information and communications network, defames each individual, such as persons of distinguished service to the 5.18 Democratization Movement

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to defamation by collective labeling, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In the trial of the court, the ex officio determination prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment against the Defendants to “persons who have impaired the honor of persons of distinguished service to the Gwangju Democratization Movement, such as victim N,O, etc., and who died from the Gwangju Democratization Movement, such as victim P, etc.” as well as to “the bereaved family members of the 518 Democratization Movement, such as victim N, the Association of Persons of Distinguished Service to the 518 Democratization Movement, the Association of Persons of Distinguished Service to the 518 Democratization Movement, the Association of Persons of Distinguished Service to the 518 Democratization Movement, and Z as well as those who died from the Gwangju Democratization Movement, such as the deceased P, etc.”

Despite such reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's argument of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. Defamation by a collective mark of relevant legal principles cannot be interpreted as a content of defamation against a specific person belonging to the group, and in principle, defamation against each individual member is not established, since the degree of criticism by collective mark does not reach the degree of impact on the social evaluation of the members due to dilution of the degree of criticism caused by individual members. However, in principle, defamation against the individual member is not established.