(a) Whether the person who provided articles and materials to a newspaper reporter is held liable for defamation by publications;

B. Whether an act constitutes defamation even when a person committed an act impairing social assessment by pointing out a well-known fact in part of society

A. In a case where material of an article, which is false fact, is provided to a newspaper reporter for the purpose of slandering another person, whether or not to post an article on a newspaper belongs to the authority of the editor of a newspaper. However, as long as an editor posted such material on a newspaper, the publication of an article is attributable to the act of a person who provided the material, and therefore, the act of providing material of an article may not be exempted from the responsibility of defamation by publication under Article 309(2) of the Criminal

B. The crime of defamation is established when a person commits an act that may undermine the social assessment of a person by pointing out a fact that was well known as part of society, even though it was not limited to the detection of hidden facts, for the purpose of establishing defamation.

Article 309(2) of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 4292 Form715 Delivered on June 8, 1960

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 93No1025 delivered on December 2, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the mistake of facts

Examining the evidence of cooking and selected by the court below in light of the records, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts of evidence selection, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principle

(1) In short, in a case where a publication is made on an independent judgment of the publishing party through a review by an expert, even if the result of defamation was caused, the reporter or publishing company who posted the publication should be liable for the crime of defamation by publication, and the informant who provided the contents of the publication cannot be held liable for the same crime.

However, in a case where the material of a false article is provided to a newspaper reporter for the purpose of slandering another person, whether or not this article belongs to the authority of the editor of the newspaper in question. However, as long as the editor posted it on the newspaper, as long as the editor posted it on the newspaper, it is attributable to the act of the person who provided the material, so this article cannot be exempted from the crime of defamation by publication under Article 309 (2) of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 4292No715 delivered on June 8, 1960).Therefore, if the court below legitimately confirmed that the defendant explained false facts to the newspaper reporter for the purpose of slandering the victim and delivered the material, and let the newspaper reporter mislead the contents to publish a false article on the newspaper, it satisfies the elements of the crime of defamation by publication, and therefore, the court below's judgment that the crime is established against the defendant is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued in the lawsuit.

(2) In addition, the contents of the article of this case were already asserted through a civil lawsuit and was sentenced to a judgment thereon, and were introduced in other daily newspapers and also became the object of interest of three persons. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the reputation of the victim was damaged because the article of this case was delayed by arranging such article and re- introduced it in a daily newspaper. However, it is reasonable to deem that the crime of defamation was committed when the article of this case was committed an act that could undermine the social assessment of the person by pointing out the article, even though it was well known as part of society, and if the article of this case was committed an act that could undermine the social assessment of the person by pointing out the article, it constitutes the crime of defamation. Therefore, the argument of the judgment of the court below against the contrary cannot be accepted. All arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)