In a case where the defendant was prosecuted on the Internet Youb website with the content that "the director of the articles of incorporation made the trademark of the articles of incorporation for the evasion of taxes in the Joseon General Book in 1940 and the Japanese Government of Joseon General in 1940 made the trademark of the articles of incorporation for the purpose of tax evasion," thereby openly pointing out facts and impairing the reputation of Gap company by openly pointing out the facts, the case holding that the defendant's act was acquitted on the grounds that the illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act is excluded.

In a case where the Defendant was indicted on charges of damaging Party A’s reputation by openly pointing out facts by inserting video works with the content that “Fri ginseng trademark created for tax evasion in the Joseon General Co., Ltd., in 1940, and the Japanese Government of Joseon General Co., Ltd., in 1940.” As to the Defendant’s trademark “B”, the case holding that the Defendant merely stated that the video works posted by the Defendant are “the articles of incorporation created by the Japanese Government of the Republic of Korea in 1940,” and that there is considerable reason to view that the Defendant’s act of using the term “B” as “B” was not referred to as “the articles of incorporation” for the current sale of red ginseng products, and that the term “B” was distinguishable from that of “B” under the Articles of Incorporation 1, 1940, which was made by the Korean Government of the Republic of Korea on the ground that the term “B” was “the articles of incorporation 1, 1940, which was made by the Korean Government of the Japanese Government of the Republic of Korea.”

Articles 307(1) and 310 of the Criminal Act; Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1

Cho Young-ju et al.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On April 29, 2015, the Defendant posted a video recording stating that “The Director of the Articles of Incorporation”, a trademark of Nonindicted Co., Ltd., which is the trademark of the Nonindicted Co., Ltd., was the trademark of the Republic of Korea (Internet address omitted), “The Director of the Articles of Incorporation made the trademark of the Articles of Incorporation for the purpose of tax evasion at the 1940 Joseon General Book, which was the Japanese colonial General, in 1940, for the purpose of tax evasion,” thereby impairing the reputation of the complainant by openly pointing out facts.

2. Summary of and judgment on Defendant’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant’s posting of video works, such as criminal facts, (hereinafter “the instant video works”), is consistent with the posting of such video works. However, this is not false facts, but merely for the purpose of slandering the complainant, and it is true and solely for the public interest.

B. Determination

1) In order for an act that defames a person by openly pointing out a fact to be dismissed and punished pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, it shall be related to the public interest when objectively viewed the facts alleged in the public interest, and an offender shall also indicate the facts for the public interest. Here, the term "public interest" refers not only to the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also to a specific social group or the whole members thereof. Whether it pertains to the public interest or not shall be determined by comparing and examining the contents and nature of the alleged facts themselves, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression, and the application of Article 310 of the Criminal Act shall not be excluded (see Supreme Court Decision 208Do6342, Nov. 13, 2008).

2) The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the Health Team and the record regarding the instant case.

① It is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act of entering the trademark “(1940)” was only the same as that of the 1940 government office, and there was no additional expression that ○○○○○○○○” product was currently sold by the complainant, and thus, the content of the video product is not referred to as “the head of the POO” but is related to the origin of the trademark “the head of the POO”. However, the term “the head of the POO” was made to distinguish between the Defendant’s act of using the 1940 government office and the 194 government office’s trademark “the ○○ government office” from the 197 government office’s ○ government office’s “the 1st government office” and “the 10th government office’s 6th government office’s 6th government office’s 10th government office’s 6th government office’s 19th government office’s 6th government office’s 1st government office’s 3th government office’s 19th government office.

Examining these points in light of the above legal principles, the illegality of the defendant's act is excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Code.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by deciding not guilty of the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Jae-soo