(영문) 대법원 2004.2.26.선고 99도5190 판결

The defendant, as a publisher and editor of monthly E, has the purpose of prohibiting from being elected by slandering the F Party G candidates who run for the 15th presidential election, which will be held on December 18, 1997;

(1)As from November 21, 1997 to December 5, 1997, H in the said magazine published 30,000 copies of E from November 21, 1997, and H in the article of title:

In fact, G candidates were 1945, 27 December 27, 197, and 15-year trust ordinance of the Republic of Korea passed at the 2nd Session of the Republic of Korea. Although G candidates did not assert the legitimacy of the Republic of Korea or system uniform, G candidates were 1 central committee members of the Republic of Korea who supported the five-year trust ordinance of the Republic of Korea passed at the 3rd Session of the Republic of Korea, this organization has functioned continuously in accordance with the order of the 3 countries in charge of the 1st century, inter-Korean Joseon Labor, and there are various non-conforming laws, anti-conforming laws, or joint and several legal organizations in Korea, which were carrying out unification lines, and their common political goals were very complicated, and they were 5th anniversary of the fact that "The 6th anniversary of the arrest of the Republic of Korea," and they were 5th anniversary of the fact that "The 6th anniversary of the election of the Republic of Korea's political goals," 3th of the National Security Act, and 4th of any federal wage in any case.

Around that time, by distributing 11,600 regular readers, 5,000 or more, including 11,600, and 5,500 or more to the nationwide sales market, it publishes false facts about the candidates and damages their honor at the same time, and (2) the publication date of the usual mar magazine was the 20th of each month, but was issued on December 15, 1997 to distribute 20,000 copies of the E 198 (No. 101) to distribute before the presidential election date, under the title “M” among the articles of the title “L” of the said magazine;

In fact, while G candidates did not have any intention or political objective to trade or extinguish the Republic of Korea in North Korea by joining the route of North Korea, or to make any such conspiracy, they shall not trade the Republic of Korea without any mold to the North Korean group. We should be absolutely elected from the President to maintain this system. In order for us to maintain this system, they should not absolutely be elected from the President. In the same way with the route of North Korea and ultimately, by integrating the same method as that of North Korea, whether they can be elected as the President to extinguish the Republic of Korea (the first part of this part of the facts charged (2));

In fact, although G candidates did not divulge confidential information of the Republic of Korea to North Korea through a fixed counter-espionage, a false statement is inserted with the following stating that “I would be able to make the President of this country who would know about the secrets of the governing body of the Republic of Korea, which was known to the enemy by going through a senior counter-espionage? If we do not know about the secrets of the governing body of the Republic of Korea before being examined, the Republic of Korea living for the last 50 years would know that if we did not know about the list before being examined, it would no longer be tank (the latter part of the facts charged (2)).”

Around that time, distribution was made in the same manner as the preceding paragraph, thereby publicly announcing false facts about the candidates, and impairing their honor.

2. Summary of the judgment below

(a) Determination on the allegation of reasons for appeal that is not a statement of fact, but a political evaluation;

In order to establish a crime of defamation under the Public Official Election and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act (under the following), a statement of specific facts should be made to undermine the people's social evaluation. The distinction between whether a certain statement of fact is a statement of fact or an expression of opinion or abstract judgment is not simply distinction by the term used, but rather by the overall circumstances surrounding such expression, namely, the overall contents and context of the expression, the background and method of expression, the delivery method, the opposite party, whether the authenticity of the expression can be verified, and the victim's identity. In addition, even if an opinion or evaluation is made, if it is conducted based on facts contrary to the truth, or if it expresses a false fact by citing an opinion or evaluation, the crime is established.

However, if only the part claimed by the defendant that is not a statement of fact in this case is removed, the part of the contents can be seen as the defendant's value judgment or opinion. However, according to the various evidences duly examined and adopted by the court below, even if they are such parts, it can be recognized that such value judgment or opinion is based on a certain fact, in full view of the overall purport of this article, namely, the overall purport of the text, the context of the article, the details of publication, the opposite party to the expression, and the method of delivery. Thus, it should be viewed that there

(b) Judgment on the claim for appeal that the appeal is not false or false;

According to various evidence duly examined and adopted by the first instance court, the facts of the judgment of the first instance court that the defendant published false contents can be acknowledged, and even if such contents are already recorded in the newspapers, magazines, or the records of the Joint Military Command headquarters in Japan, as alleged by the defendant, such conclusion does not affect any conclusion. Furthermore, in full view of various circumstances such as the defendant's social activity records, the motive and developments leading up to the defendant's social activity records, the motive and leading up to the defendant's 15th presidential election, the defendant's motive and leading up to carrying the articles of this case, and the defendant's intention as to the G candidate who was going through the above presidential election through March 1996, 196, E, 6 months, 197 and 12 October 197, 197, etc., it is deemed that there was an intentional act as to the part of the article of this case at the time of posting the article of this case.

3. The judgment of this Court

(a) An opening;

Article 21 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that all citizens shall have the freedom of press publication and the freedom of association, and the publication of the press shall not infringe on the honor or rights of others, public morals or social ethics. When the publication of the press infringes on the honor or rights of others, victims may claim compensation for damages. Article 37 (2) of the Constitution provides that all freedom and rights of the people may be restricted by law only when it is necessary for national security or maintenance of order or public welfare, and the essential contents of freedom and rights shall not be infringed on even if they are restricted.

Pursuant to the purport of the provisions, freedom of expression, in particular, freedom of expression on public interest matters, should be regulated to be guaranteed to the maximum extent as a citizen’s fundamental right. On the other hand, private legal interests, such as an individual’s honor or privacy, should also be protected. Therefore, when two or more legal interests conflict, the scope and method of regulation should be determined by weighing and balancing various interests and values related to each of such legal interests in specific cases (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2188, Feb. 25, 200).

Based on these provisions, the liability for damages is recognized as private law, and there are the major penal provisions in criminal law, which include the crime of publishing false facts under the Public Official Election Act (Article 250(2)), the crime of defamation under criminal law (Article 307-309), and the crime of insult (Article 311).

Among them, there is a request for strict interpretation in accordance with the principle of no crime without the law as to the elements for the constituent elements of crime in criminal punishment law, different from the requirements for the occurrence of liability under the private law, so there is a provision for the publication of false facts and defamation.

In addition, the benefits and protections of the two types of crimes are different in that they are external reputation, which is a social evaluation of human values, but the crime of publishing false facts and defamation requires violation of honor by publicly alleging specific facts that may undermine people's social evaluation. Thus, it is distinguished from the crime of insult that damages social evaluation by simply abstract opinions, judgments, or sacrific sentiments without requiring a statement of specific facts (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do1397, Mar. 14, 1989).

B. As to ground of appeal No. 1

(1) The distinction between factual and expression of opinion

The right of defamation and the right of disclosure of false facts under the Public Official Election Act is the value of the statement of facts.

The concept of expression of opinion, the subject matter of which is a judgment or evaluation, refers to a report or statement on the past or current facts, time, spatially specific past or current, and refers to what can be proved by evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2956, Mar. 24, 1998; 99Do4260, Apr. 25, 200; 2000Do4595, Jun. 14, 2002).

Thus, with respect to the expression of a specific fact in accordance with the meaning of the expression used in general acceptance, it means the expression of mental activities, such as having a certain perception or opinion, evaluation, decision, etc., as it is a value judgment, and the expression of a specific person’s past or present specific case or condition that can be proved by evidence, in accordance with the meaning of the expression, it means the expression of a specific person’s mental activity, such as having a certain perception or opinion, assessment, or attitude with respect to the facts or persons,

Whether a certain expression expresses a fact, expresses an opinion or comment, and at the same time, it should be distinguished from whether the expression explicitly expresses a fact which is the premise of it, and at the same time, it should be determined based on the ordinary meaning of words used on the premise that the general reader pays attention to the article, the entire flow of the article, and the connection method of phrases, etc. In addition, the context of a wider meaning of the article published, or the social flow, etc. that is the background of the article, should also be considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do2910, Apr. 25, 1997; 98Do1992, Sept. 22, 198; 200; 9Do4260, Apr. 25, 2000).

Therefore, even in cases where a certain expression appears to have indicated a single opinion or comment by pointed out the subject and act, and at the same time, when considering the context before and after the expression and the situation at the time of the expression, it is difficult to grasp the core meaning of the expression to be generally accepted in an unspecified and specific manner, and there is room to see that the expression is a critical point of view to be generally accepted by the reader, such expression cannot be deemed a statement of fact, and it is deemed an expression of opinion or evaluation.

(2) Judgment in this case

(A) The backgroundal situation at the time of the instant act

In accordance with the record, it was difficult to publish the article of this case as a result of the 15th presidential election prior to the election of the 1997 President, and the debate of the President candidate was an important election issue, and there was an interest in the elector. The defendant, as an anti-government officer who participated in the Korean War on June 25, 199 as a student soldier, was a representative director after the E’s director in which the article of this case was published, who was managing the magazine as the representative director since 193 as the publisher, and the defendant, as the representative director, posted an article of anti-public compensation tendency as a political debate, and the defendant was also posted an article of anti-public compensation trend as a political debate, and the magazine was also published as a similar article for the victim as also in March 196, June 196, and October 197.

(B) The former part of the facts charged (1)

The gist of the facts charged (1) is that there is no fact that the G candidate denies the legitimacy of the Republic of Korea itself or asserts the system uniform. The purpose of the facts charged is that there was no fact that the G candidate published a false statement to the effect that he made a direct assertion or persuadeing the system uniform, etc. (former part) and the G candidate was identified as a person subject to the police's death as he was the object of the police's death at the time of June 25 (former part). The G candidate was classified as the object of his death.

When considering the article as a whole as one crime, there is room to regard the former part in the form of a literature as a part to emphasize the specific facts of the latter as a prior ideological background in the statement of specific facts in the latter part.

Furthermore, even if the objective content of the former part of the former part does not have any fact of denying the unity of the Republic of Korea itself or alleging the system uniform.....The J and the organization jointly and severally engaged in the activities of the unified cable, such as the denial of the legitimacy of the Republic of Korea and the ultimate system uniform, which is the political objective of the organization that is carrying out the activities of the unified cable......... It is an expression of the facts charged that the contents of the activities in the original part as indicated in the facts charged are as follows: “The Republic of Korea has asserted and persuaded the legitimacy of the Republic

The argument of the country's legitimacy denial or system uniform is extremely diverse and vague, and its content cannot be defined as one of its contents, and its contents can be proved by evidence. It is difficult to see that it is the past or present specific facts in which time or space is specified.

It can be confirmed that the summary of the indictment was expressed as the "national unity" or the " democratic legitimacy" in the speech that is required as the material of the perception of the defendant about the legitimacy and the content of ideas, even though it was ‘the legitimacy of the Republic of Korea', and that it was a question about the daily behavior of the leader at the time. It can also be confirmed that the detailed argument or material regarding the contents of the ‘system uniform' has not been presented.

In addition, even if the context is seen before and after a wider sense, the door followed, “I will resolve the problem between South and North Korea within one year if I have the right to gather. If I have the right to gather, I would like to gather that I will not make a statement, such as not a proposal of normal conference, but a proposal of normal conference.” The above expressions are added to confirm that the above expressions are opinions made by the Defendant’s trend or standing.

Therefore, considering the ordinary meaning of each sign used on the premise that the general reader usually takes into account the method of dealing with the article with the article, the position of the defendant's political deliberation as the background of the expression revealed in the overall flow of the article or a broad context or record, and the atmosphere in the presidential election at the time, etc., the expression in this part appears to be in the form of a statement of fact that "the defendant has been ..........", the expression in this part, although it appears to be in the form of a statement of fact, as shown in the characteristic of the expression that does not specify the contents of the assertion and opinion, rather than the expression that the defendant tried to indicate the specific fact, it is reasonable to view that the opinion that has been subjectively assessed from the perspective of the defendant, who is a political deliberation, about whether the idea, area or ideology on the publicism hostile to the democracy of the G candidate at the time has emerged.

The summary of the facts charged (2) is that the article of the facts charged (the first part) is published to the effect that, although the G candidate did not know that he had any intention or political objective to purchase or extinguish the Republic of Korea in concert with the North Korean route, he would be able to cause a person who committed such act to be the president without disclosing confidential information of the Republic of Korea to North Korea through a fixed counter-espionage (the second part). The article of the facts charged (2) is published to the effect that, “The former part and the second part of the facts charged were distributed.” The article of the facts charged (2) are one comprehensive crime, and were charged as a commercial concurrent crime under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act and Article 309(2) of the Criminal Act.

Of them, the former part of the phrase “I am above the Republic of Korea without the mold. I would be absolutely elected from the President in order to maintain this system.” The phrase “I am above the Republic of Korea without the mold.” The phrase “I am above the Republic of Korea,” which “I am above the Republic of Korea, and the phrase “I am above the Republic of Korea in order to extinguish the Republic of Korea by integrating the route and route of North Korea with the same method in the same way as the latter can ultimately be elected by the President.” However, the phrase “I am above the end, .. I do not am without the mold?” and “I am above the end, ..... I will extinguish the work in the future.” The expression “I am above the end,” and “I am above the end, I will not see the time when I would like to extinguish, or the present time when I would like to extinguish”, “I would like to express the subject of the act in the future, it is difficult to see the present and present abstract opinion or present.

In addition, the defendant's assertion that it should not be extracted from the president even if the context before and after the broad meaning is considered together, is an abstract expression of opinion mixed with individual arguments.

(D) The last sentence of the facts charged (2)

The phrase “the Republic of Korea living in the past 50 years without being examined prior to being examined shall not be a statement of past or present facts, and it is clear that it is not a statement of fact, and it is also the meaning of inducing the readers to clarify it, and it is also clear, in light of the broad context, that the phrase “it may be allowed to make the President of the Republic of Korea who has known the enemy of the fact............)” followed the door “the person who has known the enemy of the fact......... will be able to have the President of the Republic of Korea], and there is no room to regard the immediately preceding sentence as including not only the meaning of emphasizing the solicitation in the letter but also the statement of fact.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, in the instant case, as it is not a statement of specific facts except the latter part of the facts charged (1) and the latter part of the facts charged (2) in addition to whether it constitutes the offense of insult, the crime of publishing false facts or defamation should not be constituted.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which maintained the first instance court's conviction on the whole facts charged, including the part, on the premise that the part as seen by the opinion includes a statement of fact or a statement of fact, and after determining the existence of a fact and the falsity of the fact, it erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal principles regarding defamation and disclosure of fact in the crime of publishing false facts, and the defendant's ground of appeal, including the purport thereof, is justified.

C. As to ground of appeal No. 2

(1) The burden of proof of criminal procedure

The facts constituting the elements of a criminal trial under the evidence law are subjective requirements, objective requirements, or the prosecutor bears the burden of proof. Thus, the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act and the crime of defamation of reputation in publications under Article 309 (2) of the Criminal Act should be established, and the alleged facts should be false, and the prosecutor must prove that the facts were false and publicly alleged. In a case where there is a dispute over whether the alleged facts are consistent with objective facts or not, the whole purport of the alleged facts shall not be deemed to be false even if there is a little difference from objective facts or somewhat exaggerated expression in detail, if there is a little difference from objective facts or somewhat exaggerated expression, the whole contents of the alleged facts cannot be deemed to be false. Furthermore, the conviction of guilty of a criminal facts should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a degree, there is no doubt as to the formation of a conviction, the defendant's profits cannot be asserted in the grounds for appeal.

The fact that the defendant publicly distributed the above article in the above magazine is false at the time of publication in this case where the defendant is also the person, and it should be proved that the defendant was aware that it was false.

However, in determining the burden of proof, a prosecutor who is the active party must prove the absence of a specific act at a specific time and at a specific place without reasonable doubt, as well as the proof of the absence of a certain fact in the determination of the burden of proof. However, it is difficult to prove the absence of a fact that is not specified in a specified period and space in social norms, while it is difficult to prove the existence of a fact. Therefore, such circumstance should be considered in determining whether the prosecutor fulfilled the above burden of proof.

In addition, it is not necessarily necessary to have a judge give a conviction to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt in a conviction, but it is based on direct evidence not in violation of the empirical rule and logical rule, and indirect evidence is also based on an indirect evidence that does not violate the rule of experience and logical rule, even if indirect evidence does not have a complete probative value of the crime individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that does not exist independent evidence in a comprehensive examination of all evidence under mutual relation (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3307, Oct. 24, 200). The facts constituting a subjective element, such as the intention of a crime, are acknowledged by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts based on normal empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do1899, Jul. 7, 200).

In addition, the intention of a crime includes not only the conclusive intention but also the so-called intentional negligence, which is the intention to recognize the occurrence of the result, and also the so-called intentional negligence. Thus, the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act or the crime of damaging defamation in publications under Article 309(2) of the Criminal Act is also established by dolusent intention (see Supreme Court Order 2001Mo293, Apr. 10, 2002). In addition, it is possible under the generally accepted social norms to confirm whether the specific facts alleged by the defendant are true. Even if it is recognized, if the defendant did not make efforts for such confirmation but actively take place in the statement of the fact with the purpose of slandering it, it can be recognized as willful negligence.

(2) The proof of false facts in the instant case

(A) The latter part of the facts charged (1)

The truth alleged in the bill of indictment stated that "G candidates had not been identified as those subject to the police's death as at the time of June 25, 25," and that the defendant stated that "the defendant was classified as those subject to the death in the military of North Korea since June 25, 25, rather than that it was obvious that the military candidates would have been able to live at the time of June 25, 25, but it was identified as those subject to the death in the post of the military of North Korea since June 25, and that he was arrested in the military of North Korea due to suspicion such as unpaid wages and embezzlement, etc., and that he escaped from the military of North Korea on several occasions in Seoul on September 28, 28."

In full view of the context, the first part of the “Unpaid wage.... followed by the Defendant’s category as the subject of death at the time of June 25, 25,” where the key part of the issue of falsity is whether or not it is false is that the Defendant was identified as the subject of death.”

In addition, it is difficult to prove that there is no true fact that the police does not have been designated as a person subject to death at the time of 6.25. The fact that the police does not have been designated as a person subject to death at the time of the act, or that there is no fact so designated as a person subject to death at the time of the act, because it is not proved by social norms, so it is possible to prove the fact that the person

Compared with the evidence in the records, in particular, the records of the relevant case, written judgments, written indictments, other official documents, N's testimony, etc., the court below is justified in holding that the article of the central public opinion in Japan's magazines is not reliable and that it was proved that it was false for the relevant part of the records.

Therefore, the fact that the victim was not clear to be the subject of death by the National Police, and that the defendant was classified as the subject of death by the National Police, does not have any material to deem that there was no reasonable ground for recognizing or recognizing the fact as true at the time of the act, and that there was a key part in the facts charged (1) and that the part ".........." is distorted" is also proved as a statement of false facts.

(B) The latter part of the facts charged (2)

The truth alleged in the bill of indictment is that the G candidate did not divulge confidential information of the Republic of Korea to North Korea through a fixed counter-espionage, and the facts stated are that "it has been known to the enemy that he/she knew through a high counter-espionage."

Since the time, spatial act, and method of the defendant's timely facts are not specified and thus the absence of proof is a fact that cannot be proved, it is more easy to identify and prove the active facts such as the defendant's statement.

Compared with the evidence in the record, the court below's recognition and determination are justifiable, which held that active existence or important part of the facts constituting a specific content cannot be deemed to have been specified, as the victim had passed through a fixed espionage or leaked any of the State secrets, and that there was a false representation in the facts or the statements or opinions of the court below.

Therefore, this part of the stated fact is also a false fact, and there is no evidence to deem that there was a reasonable ground for the defendant to recognize it as true fact at the time of the act or that there was a reasonable ground to recognize it.

Ultimately, there is no room to deem that only the important parts of the charges (1) and the latter part of the charges (2) as to the statement of facts cannot be deemed to be consistent with objective facts, and that it is somewhat exaggerated expressions of true facts. As such, it is deemed that the publication was published and distributed in a timely manner with willful negligence that the Defendant may be found to be false facts. Accordingly, the lower court’s determination that upheld the first instance judgment of the same purport does not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations for the recognition and determination, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, by failing to comply with the rules of evidence, or by misunderstanding relevant legal principles.

We cannot accept this part of the grounds of appeal.

D. As to ground of appeal No. 3

(1) The freedom of speech and expression is a means of maintaining mutual respect and realizing self-government, which is the basic principle of an individual’s means of self-realization, which is an individual’s personal value forming one’s own personality through the press activities, as well as an equal consideration and respect as a member of society, which is a social value participating in political decision-making. In the event that an individual’s press activities impair another’s reputation, the individual’s personality right is superior to the freedom of the press in private relations between the actor and the victim, but if the expression in question constitutes public, social, and objective information, its evaluation should be different. The process of gathering public opinion at an open space where the political media is hidden and gathering it to a large number of opinions and forming it is an essential element of a democratic system is the purport of the ground of appeal.

However, Article 310 of the Criminal Act, which is a provision excluding illegality, cannot be directly applied to the crime of defamation in publications under Article 309 (2) of the Criminal Act, even if the alleged facts are true facts, and are stated for the public interest, its illegality shall not be ruled out. However, the purpose of slandering a crime composed for the purpose of slandering a person is required for the intention or purpose, and the objective of slandering the public interest is in conflict with the direction of subjective intention of the actor, and thus, if it is proved that the alleged facts are related to the public interest, the purpose of slandering a person may be denied unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do158, Oct. 9, 198; 200Do329, Aug. 23, 2002).

In addition, when interpreting penal provisions on defamation of media media, it is necessary to set limits on freedom of speech by considering the following: whether the victim is a public figure, a private figure, or a private figure in order to coordinate freedom of the media and protection of the reputation of individuals; whether the victim is a purely private matter; whether the victim raised the risk of defamation; whether the expression objectively contributes to the formation of public opinion or public debate as a citizen's right to know; and whether the expression objectively contributes to the formation of public opinion or public debate as a citizen's right to know (see Constitutional Court Order 97Hun-Ma265 delivered on June 24, 199).

(2) With respect to the latter part of the facts charged (1) and the latter part of the facts charged (2) which are judged as a statement of false facts in this case, there is no record that the victim first raised the risk of such expression, and the fact concerns the presidential candidate and thus is related to the public figures. However, it does not mean that the publicly alleged facts were not confirmed as true by a trial, and the fact does not mean that the public facts were not confirmed as true by a trial, and it was published and distributed in front of the publication period by pointing out the facts in the magazine with strong radio waves at the time immediately before the presidential election without making all efforts to confirm their truth at the stage of not presenting suspicion and evidence by an investigative agency. In addition, it is determined that the publicly alleged facts led to a serious ideological crime that the victim becomes subject to death, and that the statutory punishment under the current law has committed a crime against the death of the victim, and that the victim was aware that the victim was a victim, as an individual, and that the victim was related to the life and death and that it could not have any serious influence on the press, other means of expression.

In a way that ordinary readers ordinarily understand news articles, it is reasonable to conclude that in the instant case where the news report was not a news report in the past, but a news report was made in the form of cruel evidence or possibility, and that the victim committed such act was repeatedly emphasized on the premise that it was true, the purpose of slandering in the time of distributing the relevant magazine, the method of expression of the article, etc. is rare.

Furthermore, as the freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right of the people, the market of opinion or the scarbling room of the press should be respected. However, when balancing the freedom of the press and the protection of the reputation of the victim in the factual relations of this case, if the illegality of the article is recognized, it cannot be said that the article's determination as illegal has an undue influence on the scarbing room of the market

In addition, the necessity of the media, such as daily newspapers, which are fluored and fluored, to be recognized as a public role as the freedom of newspapers, is acceptable. However, unlike such media, E for a monthly period, unlike E, not only has much time to verify the authenticity of the contents of the article, but also in this case, in which the time of publication intentionally advanced and advanced the time of publication, the characteristics of the freedom of newspapers cannot be reflected.

We cannot accept this part of the grounds of appeal.

E. Effect of the decision of the court below

If part of the crimes prosecuted for an inclusive 1 crime is found guilty and part of the charges is not found guilty, and the sentencing of the fact-finding court may vary due to the part that is not found guilty, the reason would affect the conclusion of the judgment below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do3601, Feb. 12, 199; 2003Do889, Jun. 13, 2003).

In this case, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance, which held that all of the expressions expressed in the sentences of the facts charged (1) and (2) were convicted as an expression containing a statement of false facts, and that all of the contents of the indictment were convicted as an expression containing a statement of false facts. As seen above, if the part acknowledged as a statement of false facts and other parts that were not recognized as guilty as a statement of false facts were separated from the part that were found as a statement of false facts and the part that were not recognized as guilty as a statement of false facts, and the part that were not recognized as a statement of false facts were the importance of the part that were used in the article, and thus, it is deemed that the part that was not recognized as guilty had affected the sentencing of this case maintained by the

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed in its entirety.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.