2016 Extraordinary 167 Defamation

A

Cho Young-ju (Public Prosecution) and Masho (Public Trial)

June 8, 2017

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On April 29, 2015, the Defendant posted a video recording on the Internet Youb website (htps:/B/Watch?v =MeR0-Gcw0) that “O,” a trademark of the Korea Ginseng Corporation, “OO,” which is the trademark of the Korea Ginseng Corporation, made in the Joseon General Department in 1940, for the purpose of tax evasion, the Hong ginseng trademark created by the 1940 Joseon General System in the 1940s, and the Japanese Joseon General in the 1940s, which was the OO trademark for the purpose of tax evasion, thereby impairing the reputation of the complainant by openly stating the fact.”

2. Summary of and judgment on Defendant’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

Although the Defendant posted a video recording (hereinafter “the instant video recording”) on the same criminal facts, it does not constitute false facts, but did not intend to slander the complainant’s construction, and it is solely for the public interest as true facts.

B. Determination

1) In order for an act that defames a person by openly pointing out a fact to be punished pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, it shall be related to the public interest when objectively seen that the alleged fact is related to the public interest, and an actor also indicates the fact for the public interest. Here, the term “public interest” refers not only to the interests of the State, society, and other general public, but also to a specific social group or a group of its members. Whether it pertains to the public interest or not shall be determined by comparing and considering the contents and nature of the alleged fact itself, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the method of expression, and other various circumstances pertaining to the expression itself, including the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression, and the application of Article 310 of the Criminal Act shall not be excluded (see Supreme Court Decision 208Do6342, Nov. 13, 2008).

2) The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the Health Team and the record regarding the instant case.

① It is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act of using the same term “O” as “1,00,000,000 which was made by the Korean government,” and that there was no additional expression that is currently sold by the 1940 Japanese government corporation, and thus, constitutes “O” rather than referring to “O” under the Korean government system. However, the term “O” was created to distinguish between the Defendant’s act of using the word “1,00,000 Japanese government system” from that of “O” under the Korean government system, and thus, it appears that the Defendant continued to use the word “O” under the Korean government system. The meaning of the pure word “1,000,000 Japanese government system” was “1,000,000 Japanese government system, and thus, constitutes “O” under the Korean government system, and thus, constitutes “O” under the Korean government system, and thus, constitutes “O” under the Korean government system.

Examining these points in light of the above legal principles, the illegality of the defendant's act is excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Code.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by deciding not guilty of the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Jae-soo