All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case involving tort liability due to political expression, defamation and insult should be dealt with separately, and the recognition of liability should be different, thereby ensuring broad freedom of expression in relation to political debate or expression of opinion.

In order to recognize the responsibility of defamation due to an expressive act, it is recognized that reputation has been damaged by publicly alleging a fact. Determination as to whether an expressive act constitutes defamation should take into account not only the expression used but also the speaker and his/her counterpart as well as the position.

Freedom of expression, in particular, freedom of expression on public concerns should be guaranteed as important constitutional rights.

However, since a private legal interest of an individual is also protected, when two legal interests conflict between the guarantee of freedom of expression and the protection of personal rights, the scope and method of regulation should be determined by weighing and balancing the value obtained from the freedom of expression in specific cases and the value achieved by the protection of personal rights.

The expression of critical opinion against another person cannot be deemed unlawful unless there are extremely exceptional circumstances.

However, in a case where the form and content of an expressive act falls under an insulting and anti-defensive personal attack or infringes on personal rights by making a public announcement distorted facts beyond a certain degree of exaggeration regarding another person’s personal affairs, it may be deemed tort as exceeding the limit of expression of opinion.

In the process of political ideological debate, it would be an outcome that excessively limits the freedom of expression to prohibit and impose legal responsibilities on the parts that can be seen as being merely an ephetorical exaggeration or a lusical expression that can be ordinarily seen as being in the process of political ideological debate.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da61654 Decided October 30, 2018, etc.).