The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the distinction between a statement of fact and an expression of opinion

A. In the crime of defamation, a statement of fact is a concept substituted by an expression of opinion the content of which is a value judgment or evaluation, and the content of the statement refers to a statement that can be proved by evidence, and in distinguishing whether it is a fact or an opinion, it shall be determined by taking into account the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the possibility of proof, the context in which the expression in question is used, the context in which the expression in question is used, the social situation in which the expression in question is used, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2956, Mar. 24, 1998, etc.). The expression used in criticism or writing of another person’s speech takes the form of describing specific facts verifiable by evidence that can be proved by the evidence.

In light of the intent of writing, logical flow, descriptive system, development method, the overall contents of the language or writing subject to the relevant writing and criticism, etc., the part at issue from the perspective of average readers actually constitutes a non-reader’s subjective opinion. However, if it is understood that a non-reader uses such expression as a means to emphasize 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.

B. The gist of the facts charged of this case is not only denying the name of the Victim’s Republic of Korea (hereinafter “victim’s Republic of Korea”) in the letter of “I” (hereinafter “victim’s Republic of Korea”), but also taking advantage of Japan’s historical records that Japan occupied or ruled another region of the South Korean Peninsula, including must, at a specific time of senior Ambassador.