[1] The concept of publication in the crime of defamation against publication

[2] Whether a copy of the highest letter, which shows that the number of pages is only two and the method of submitting a copy is also unreasonable / [1] Whether it constitutes a publication as stipulated in paragraph (1) (negative)

[1] The reason why the Criminal Code imposes more severe punishment on the crime of defamation by publication is that the use of publication, etc. by factual means, such as high propagation, reliability, and possibility of long-term preservation that many people can see, in light of the fact that the degree of infringement of legal interests against victims such as infringement of legal interests is greater, it should be seen as "other publication" under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Code, even if it is not registered or published, it should be viewed as a "other publication" under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Code.

[2] It is difficult to view that a copy of the highest letter, which shows that the number of pages is less than two and the method of reproduction is also unreasonable, constitutes a publication with the appearance and function to the extent that it can be seen as a publication.

[1] Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 85Do1143 delivered on March 25, 1986 (Gong1986, 729)

Defendant

Defendant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 95No430 delivered on December 26, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. 원심은 피고인이 원심 원심 공동피고인, 공소외 1와 공모하여 피해자 1, 2, 3, 3을 비방할 목적으로, 위 원심 공동피고인에게 '이사장님과 임원에게'라는 제하에 그 판시와 같은 내용의 최고서 사본을 건네주고, 위 공소외 1, 원심 공동피고인 등이 이를 근거로 '서명운동에 동참합시다'라는 제목으로 조합사옥 신축공사와 관련하여 위 피해자들에게 비리가 있다는 취지의 내용을 백지에 기재하고, 피고인으로부터 건네받은 위 최고서 사본을 첨부한 다음, 이를 약 300여 부 전자복사하여 공소외 2 신용협동조합 평조합원인 공소외 성낙일에게 위 유인물을 나눠주고 서명날인을 받은 것을 비롯하여 약 260여 명의 조합원들에게 위 유인물을 나눠줌으로써 위 피해자들 및 조합의 명예를 훼손하였다는 내용의 이 사건 공소사실에 대하여 형법 제309조 제1항 소정의 출판물에의한명예훼손죄를 적용하여 유죄로 인정하였다.

2. In light of the fact that the Criminal Act imposes more severe punishment on the crime of defamation by publication than general defamation, the use of publication, etc. by factual means, such as high propagation and reliability that many people can see in its nature, and the possibility of long-term preservation, constitutes "other publication" as provided by Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act, even though it is not registered or published, it is reasonable to view that at least the same level of utility and function and can be seen as printed materials with appearance that can be distributed and/or used in publications, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant prepared the above peremptory notice by any means, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant prepared it, and there is no way to examine this issue, and it can be seen that the number of copies of the publications is merely the same as the number of copies, and the above highest publication can be seen as the appearance and function of the publication.

Nevertheless, the court below's finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged is due to the misapprehension of the legal principle of defamation by publication, or failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to whether the inducement of this case constitutes "other publications". The argument that points this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)