Defendant

Defendant

Is Earsen

Attorney Cho Jin-hun

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2005 High Court Decision 1902 Decided June 28, 2006

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles);

Although the Defendant was aware of the facts identical to the facts charged in the instant case, it did not indicate the fact, but did not indicate the fact, and even if it was a statement of family facts, there was no perception that it was false or false to the Defendant at the time, and there was no possibility that the content of the statement would spread externally, and thus, there was no performance. The content of the statement did not constitute illegality in light of the fundamental rights of the Constitution, which is the freedom of religion, as an expression of the principal statement in the religious aspect. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on defamation

2. Determination:

A. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: “The Defendant, around 11:00 on May 11, 2005, delivered to the memorial hall for 100 weeks at the Geo-gun graduate School of the Korea National University (Seoul National University), in which there are more than 1,200 students, who are the professors and the pastors of the said university, and delivered a tugboat to the above university, Nonindicted 1 of the Korea National Assembly of the Korea National Assembly of the Korea National Assembly of the Korea National Assembly of the Republic of Korea to the victim Nonindicted 1, who is the pastors of the Korea National Assembly of the Korea National Assembly of the Korea National Assembly of the Korea National Assembly of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of Korea of the Republic of Korea of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of Korea of the Republic of Korea of

(b) basic facts;

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the defendant is the professor and pastor in charge of historical science at the KIG KIG, and the defendant stated in the facts charged as part of 1 semester of 2005 as part of the LIG, and at the place for 1,200 graduate students, other clothes among the GIG, which are the new fIG for 1,200 students, in addition to the initial fIG, e.g., the other fIG, which are different from the fIG, in the initial fIG, and the other fIG, I would not be able to take the fIG at any time of the KIG, and I would not be able to exempt the fIG from the fIGGG, which is the first fIGG, which is the second fIG, which is the second fIG, which is the second fIGG, which is the second fIG.

C. Determination on the part that the Defendant read “Non-Indicted 1 I I I I I before this end.”

In the crime of defamation, the term "statement of fact" means a concept substituted by an expression of opinion the content of which is a value judgment or evaluation, which refers to a report or statement of specific past or current facts in time and space, and its contents are able to be proved by evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2956, Mar. 24, 1998, etc.). It is reasonable to see that it is the expression "person who asserts or acted or acted against the doctrine of religion and good faith" in a religious perspective.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, in light of the foregoing legal principles, as to the part that the Defendant called “Non-Indicted 1 is the only part among this part of the facts charged,” the issue of which doctrine among the doctrine of the Korean Egymnasium belonging to the Defendant or Non-Indicted 1 is the doctrine of the common sense and which doctrine is contrary to the doctrine of the common sense is eventually different depending on the concept evaluated by the majority of the pastors or believerss constituting a religious order, which eventually leads to a value assessment issue, not a matter of fact. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant indicated the facts charged. Accordingly, the lower court’s judgment that deemed this part of the facts charged as a supplementary statement of another factual part is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles of the crime of defamation.

D. The judgment as to the part that the defendant stated, "Non-Indicted 1 teaching that he should transfer the name to practice, and that he also teach the secret interest."

(1) In determining whether the facts alleged in order to apply Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act are false facts, if the facts alleged in the statement are consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the facts alleged in the statement, it cannot be viewed as false facts even if there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4757, Feb. 25, 2000). In order to determine whether there is false facts in a case where a dispute over religious doctrine, such as the instant case, becomes a premise, the other party to the defamation act, i.e., the scope and status of the persons exposed to defamation, and the identity of the victim, should be considered as important. In other words, the heavy principle of criminal trial, namely, evidence with probative value that can lead to a judge to feel that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt about the defendant's guilt, it should be determined with the profits of the defendant.

(2) First of all, we examine whether the part of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged that “ Nonindicted Party 1 told that “the Defendant would move the name to practice” was false or false.

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant only made the aforementioned remarks without mentioning the specific contents of the doctrine which Nonindicted Party 1 argued or heard at the time of the instant case. The subjects of the instant reply are 1,200 students of the new school at the general assembly of the school to which Nonindicted Party 1 belongs, and Nonindicted Party 1 also was a pastor subject to the doctrine of the Ethical meeting of Korea. The purport of the instant complaint by Nonindicted Party 1, which is the complainant, lies in Nonindicted Party 1’s assertion of the doctrine of the Non-Indicted Party 1, which is the same as that of the Non-Indicted Party 1, the Defendant provided false facts to the students of the graduate school that is the same as that of the Non-Indicted Party 1, the Non-Indicted Party 1, and Non-Indicted Party 6’s statement in the instant case is difficult to conclude that there is no evidence that Non-Indicted Party 3’s statement in the instant case as to whether Non-Indicted Party 6’s statement and reply to the Non-Indicted Party 3’s statement in Seoul High Court (hereinafter referred to Nonindicted Party 6’s statement in this part).

(3) We examine the following facts in this part of the facts charged: (a) whether the part of the facts charged “the Defendant told Nonindicted Party 1 that “the Defendant is in secret interest” was false or false.

According to the facts examined in the above (2) of this part of the facts charged, the issue of this part of the facts charged is whether there is "the non-indicted 1's assertion or explanation for the whole subjects of the model of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the facts charged in this case are not deemed a statement of fact, and the part which is a statement of fact is not a statement of fact, and there is no evidence to prove that it is a statement of fact, and the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, by misunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles on the statement of fact in the crime of defamation, and therefore, the defendant's ground for appeal pointing this out is justified (it is not illegal even if the court included the facts charged in comparison with the facts charged, and even if it is recognized as a minor facts, if it is not punished, it is not recognized as a considerable violation of justice and equity, unless it is recognized as being against the principle of justice and equity.

F. L. L. L. L.

Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that "All citizens shall enjoy freedom of religion." The freedom of religion includes the freedom of mission to promote a religion which one's own belief and to identify new believers, and the freedom of mission includes the freedom to criticize other religious or religious groups or to recommend other believerss of religion. The freedom of mission is also subject to protection of freedom of expression at the same time. However, Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea on freedom of religion has the nature of special provisions regarding freedom of expression as to Article 21 (1) of the Constitution on freedom of religion. Thus, in the case of media and publication for religious purposes, it shall be more guaranteed than other general press and publication (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da196Da19246, 19253 delivered on September 6, 196).

In light of the above legal principles, as seen in this case, the determination of illegality is reasonable to return from a religious point of view the part of the members constituting the religious or religious group as much as possible, and we further express that it is reasonable to refrain from being determined in accordance with the judicial criteria, such as general cases.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision shall be rendered

The summary of the facts charged of this case is the same as that of the above 2-A, and as seen in the above 2-C, D, and E, the facts charged of this case constitutes a case where the facts charged of this case is not a crime or there is no proof of the facts charged, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part and latter part of

Judges Park Jae-chul (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ho