A. In the establishment of defamation, a statement of fact and its degree

(b) Whether the content of the statement “competing,” “competing,” indicates a specific fact;

A. In order to establish the crime of defamation, a statement of fact must be made, and the alleged facts should thereby be made to the extent that the social value or assessment of a specific person might be infringed.

B. The content of the statement “competence and illness” is nothing more than the Defendant’s hiverous speech while using the victim’s hiverous speech to insult, but it is difficult to view that the Defendant expressed specific facts sufficient to lower the victim’s social value or evaluation.

(b)Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Do1397 delivered on March 14, 1989 (Gong1989,639), 91Do420 delivered on May 14, 1991 (Gong1991,1682), 93Do696 delivered on June 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2145) (Gong1982,89). Supreme Court Decision 85Do1629 delivered on October 22, 1985 (Gong1985,1589), 87Do739 delivered on May 12, 1987 (Gong1987,1018)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 94No660 delivered on May 24, 1994

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

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

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the court of first instance judged that the defendant injured the victim's reputation by openly pointing out facts, such as the victim's "oral and illness," at the home of the victim, on July 8, 1992, at around 15:00, at the time of the victim's home, the defendant injured the victim's reputation by openly pointing out facts.

If we examine the trial evidence of the first instance court by comparing it with the records, we affirm the decision of the court below that recognized the above facts, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence without making a proper deliberation like the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to discuss.

However, in order to establish the crime of defamation ex officio, a statement of fact must be made to establish the crime of defamation, and the alleged facts should thereby be maintained to the extent that the social value or evaluation of a specific person is likely to be infringed (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do696, Jun. 28, 1994). In this case, the Defendant’s statement “Ireh and C,” “Ireh,” which the Defendant used a hive speech for the purpose of insulting the victim, is nothing more than the Defendant’s desire to use a hive speech for the purpose of insulting the victim, and it is difficult to view it as a statement of specific facts sufficient to reduce the social value or evaluation of the victim.

In this regard, the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on defamation, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, since the judgment of the court below which sentenced the act of the judgment as a crime of defamation cannot be maintained, it shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)