The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal argues that the defendant did not have the purpose of causing damage to the victim, and that the court below's conviction against the defendant is a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, even though the defendant requested voluntary withdrawal from the victim for the survival of the political party faced with a crisis as

2. For the purpose of not punishing a person by publicly pointing out a fact, an act of impairing a person’s reputation is related to the public interest when the publicly alleged fact is objectively deemed to be related to the public interest, and an actor is also required to indicate the fact for the sake of the public interest, and there is a good reason to believe that the publicly alleged fact is true or that at least the actor has believed the fact to be true, and there is reasonable reason to believe it. Here, the term “actual fact” means the fact that the material part is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the content, and it is nothing more than anything different from truth or somewhat exaggerated expression in detail. Furthermore, the term “public interest” includes not only the matter related to the interests of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a particular social group or its entire members. Whether the alleged fact concerns the public interest is determined by considering the contents and nature of the publicly alleged fact, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, the method of expression itself, etc., as well as the situation of the expression itself, and its motive or intent for the public interest can be determined by comparing.

I would like to say.

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on September 24, 2002