The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On October 16, 2012, the Defendant injured the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by stating that “the general secretary director and the union head’s confidential documents will cut off, including the list of D cooperatives,” and that there was no fact that the Defendant confirmed it by considerable means. However, even though there was no fact that the Defendant confirmed it, the Defendant’s reputation was damaged by publicly pointing out a notice stating that “D enforcement unit cannot be cut off” posted on the Internet NV E site F/Development bulletin.

2. It is true that the defendant's assertion of the above facts charged posted comments on the same comments as the above facts charged. However, even if it is true, even if it is not true, the defendant believed that it was true, and there was a reasonable reason to believe that it was not true, and the illegality is dismissed as it concerns the public interest for the union.

3. Determination

A. If an act that defames a person by openly pointing out a fact is true and solely for the public interest, it may not be punished pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act. The term “the time when a person’s reputation is involved in the public interest” refers to the public interest when objectively viewed the alleged fact, and an actor also ought to subjectively indicate such fact for the public interest. This refers to not only to the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also to the interest and interest of a specific social group or its entire members. Whether the alleged fact pertains to the public interest is related to the expression itself, such as the content and nature of the alleged fact, the scope of the counter-party against which the publication of the relevant fact was made, the method of expression, etc.