The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order to establish a crime of defamation, a statement of fact must be made, and the alleged fact should thereby be made to the extent that the social value or evaluation of a specific person is likely to be infringed (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2188, Feb. 25, 200, etc.). In this case, the term “public allegation of fact” refers to a report or statement on the past or present facts in the time and spatial detail, and the contents of the statement refer to those that can be proven by evidence, and in distinguishing the facts or authorization of opinion, it refers to the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the possibility of proof, the context in which the expression in question was used, the context in which the expression in question was used, and the whole circumstances, such as social situation, etc., should be considered in light of the entire form of facts described in the statement that can be proved by evidence using another person’s speech or writing (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2956, Mar. 24, 1998, etc.).

Even in light of the intent of writing, logical flow, descriptive system and method, the overall contents of the language or writing in question, etc., the part at issue from an average reader’s perspective constitutes an ordinary reader’s subjective opinion. However, if it is understood that a person is using such expression as a means of emphasizing his/her opinion, it cannot be deemed that the part at issue constitutes a statement of fact as referred to in the crime of defamation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do19255, May 11, 2017). Such a legal doctrine does not differ in cases of expression that is used by criticism of another person’s opinion or its basis to assert any opinion.

On the other hand, in a civil trial, the court has a dispute between the parties.