The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors or misapprehension of legal principles) did not state such a statement at the time and place indicated in the facts charged of this case, and even if such a statement was made, it cannot be deemed that the victim’s social value or evaluation has been deteriorated as well as that, thereby, even if such statement was made, it cannot be deemed that the content thereof was false.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Although the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, the lower court determined that, in light of each of the evidence indicated in the judgment, “the Defendant had damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts as indicated in the instant facts charged.”

In order to establish a crime of defamation, it is required to engage in an act of expressing a specific fact sufficient to undermine the people's social evaluation as a subjective element. Whether a certain expression is defamation should be determined by an objective evaluation in accordance with the social norms of the expression, and a value-oriented expression was used.

Even if social norms, if it is judged that the social evaluation of a specific person has deteriorated, the crime of defamation is established.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2877, Oct. 28, 2010). In the crime of defamation, “a statement of fact” refers to a report or statement on the past or present facts in a specific past or spatial context, which is an alternative concept to “a statement of opinion” whose content is a value judgment or evaluation, and the content of the statement can be proven by evidence. In determining whether a report or statement is a fact-finding or an opinion, the ordinary meaning and usage of the language is used.