A. In the establishment of defamation, a statement of fact and its degree

B. Whether there is a possibility that a complainant's social value or evaluation may be infringed upon if the facts of the charge of the crime are known and known.

(c) The case that it was found that there was no indication of specific facts sufficient to impair the honor;

A. In order to establish the crime of defamation, a statement of fact must be made, and the alleged facts should thereby be maintained so as to be likely to infringe on the social value or assessment of a particular person.

B. Any person may file a complaint when he/she considers an offense has been committed. As such, the fact that a person filed a complaint is aware of the fact that he/she filed a crime and the fact alone does not lead to an infringement on the social value or assessment of the complainant. However, there are circumstances, such as the motive or circumstance of the accusation is inconsistent or unreasonable, and the reputation of the complainant may be infringed if such circumstances are well known.

C. However, if the Defendant did not mention at all the motive or circumstance of the accusation that the victim accused the Defendant’s crime, it is difficult to view that such words alone indicate specific facts sufficient to infringe on the victim’s social value or evaluation.

Article 307 of the Criminal Act

A.C. Supreme Court Decision 88Do1397 delivered on March 14, 1989 (Gong1989,639). Supreme Court Decision 91Do420 delivered on May 14, 1991 (Gong1991,1682), Supreme Court Decision 92Do3035 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong1993,1425), Supreme Court Decision 85Do1629 delivered on October 22, 1985 (Gong1985,1589), Supreme Court Decision 87Do739 delivered on May 12, 1987 (Gong1987,1018)

Defendant 1 and one other

Attorney Kim Jong-jin

Defendants

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No7095, 4319 (Consolidated) decided February 16, 1993

Of the judgment below, the part of the crime of defamation against Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

All of the remaining appeals by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are dismissed.

1. Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal are examined (if the supplemental appellate brief was not timely filed, it is considered to the extent that it supplements the same Defendant’s grounds of appeal).

A. As to fraud

Examining the evidence of the first instance court cited by the court below in comparison with the records, first, each part of the protocol of interrogation of the first instance, which is the time when the co-defendants of the court below conspired with the defendant 1 among the interrogation protocol 2 and 3 of the court below as to co-defendants of the court below, shall be judged to be credibility in light of the body of the body or the whole contents thereof, and it shall not be deemed as a ground for suspecting credibility because the co-defendants of the court below reversed the above statement in the court, and it shall not be deemed to be a ground for suspecting credibility. Accordingly, the court below's finding that the defendant 1 conspireds or participated in the fraud in the prosecutor's statement in the court below and other evidences at the time of the court below's prosecutor's office shall be justified, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding facts

B. As to defamation

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below found that Defendant 1 was not a job placement service conducted without permission and was investigated by the Seoul Northern Police Station, but it was erroneous for the victim and the non-indicted to believe that it was due to the smuggling between the victim and the non-indicted, and that the victim et al. were the victim and the non-indicted 6 present at the meeting of the Efficial Council of Efficials, the non-indicted 1 did not attend, and the victim and the non-indicted 1 were called the victim and the non-indicted 2 at the police station. The court of first instance declared that the plaintiff damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts. The year reported the marie reported to the police station.

However, in order to establish the crime of defamation, a statement of fact must be made, and the alleged facts should be held so as to be likely to infringe on the social value or evaluation of a specific person. The above statement made by Defendant 1 in this case is nothing more than a statement of specific facts that it was being investigated by another member of the police station rather than a statement of specific facts that it would undermine the social value or evaluation of the victim, and it seems that the above statement made by Defendant 1 is nothing more than a statement of the victim's sexual intercourse with other members of the society where he was investigated by the police station, and it seems that the victim's accusation was incidental to it, and that the victim's accusation against the other victim who made the mistake that the victim was accused.

Any person may file a complaint when he/she considers an offense (Article 234(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). As such, the fact that a person filed a criminal charge is aware of the fact that he/she filed a criminal charge and the fact that he/she, alone, alone, cannot be deemed as having a possibility of infringing on the social value or assessment of the complainant. However, there are circumstances where the motive or circumstance of the accusation is not inconsistent or unreasonable, and where such circumstances are well known, the honor of the complainant may be infringed.

According to the records, it is recognized that Defendant 1 was a clear fact that he actually offered job placement without the permission of the authority, and the victim may also present the case where he was a member of the same kind of friendship with Defendant 1 and there is a need or unavoidable reason to prosecute the crime of job placement without the permission of the same defendant. Thus, if the defendant only expressed that the victim accused the same crime like the original judgment, and did not mentioned all the motive or circumstance of the accusation, it is difficult to view that such words alone indicate a specific fact sufficient to infringe on the social value or evaluation of the victim.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of defamation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the argument is justified.

2. Defendant 2 did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and did not submit the appellate brief within a lawful period (the appellate brief was submitted after the lapse of the period of appeal). Defendant 2’s appeal is without merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning defamation against Defendant 1 cannot be maintained for the same reason as stated above. Since the court below rendered a separate punishment as to defamation and defamation in the judgment of the court below on the ground that the crime of violation of the Act on the Employment Security and Employment Promotion and the crime of defamation against which a summary order became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the crime of defamation against the same defendant is reversed and remanded to the court below. The appeal by Defendant 2 and the appeal by Defendant 1 against the above part of the crime of defamation are dismissed. It is so decided as per

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)