The case holding that each act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules, in relation to the facts charged that the party has damaged the reputation of the witness by expressing the above-mentioned signature letter indicating the relationship between the other party and the other party in the civil litigation court, and then the other party has damaged the reputation of the witness.

The case holding that each act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social rules, in light of the motive and purpose, means and method of pleading, party's right to pleading and the degree of interest between the witness's reputation and the other party's reputation, on the facts charged that the witness injured the witness's reputation by expressing a letter of signature indicating the relationship between the other party and the other party and expressing it to the other party, that the party committed the above act in order to conceal the credibility of the witness's statement because it is likely that the court would not mislead the other party's fact-finding due to the witness's statement closely related to the other party in the trial process.

[1] Articles 20 and 307(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney A

Seoul District Court Decision 200Ra414 delivered on June 22, 2000

Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2307 Delivered on July 10, 2001

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

When the original adjudication was conducted, Paragraph (1) of the criminal facts occurred in the process of the civil procedure between the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 and the Defendant who had concerns over the testimony favorable to Nonindicted Party 1 by attending as a witness of the victim and attending the trial division to the effect that the testimony of the victim is not true, considering the relationship between the victim and Nonindicted Party 1 as the relationship between the victim and Nonindicted Party 1. In order to prove that the Defendant’s above legal statement cannot be trusted, Paragraph (2) of the criminal facts in the original adjudication, the Defendant received a signature from the victim to B, etc. who is well aware of the relationship between the victim and Nonindicted Party 1. Thus, the above acts are to clarify that the testimony of the victim did not harm the reputation of the victim,

2. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant,

(a)on September 30, 199, at around 16:15, several visitors present at the court room located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Branch Branching 680, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City District Court Branching 6.6, stating that “the witness is not qualified to sit at that seat. It is because there is a relationship with Non-Indicted 1 with Non-Indicted 1;” publicly indicating the facts;

B. On September 10 of the same year, around Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu C and the building owned by the Defendant located in the same Gu, the victim’s reputation was damaged by openly pointing out a signature stating “the victim and Nonindicted Party 1 who operates the coffee shop as an internal combustion relationship.” The victim and Nonindicted Party 1 shown in the confirmation column, as above, a signature stating “a confirmation letter with the said tenant’s joint signature,” and publicly alleging facts.

3. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s statement at the lower court’s court, the Defendant’s statement at the trial court, the police interrogation protocol of the Defendant (including the part on which the victim’s statement was written), the statement of the Defendant’s victim’s written statement (the 43 pages), U, V, W, X, andY’s written confirmation (the 46 pages), the business registration certificate (the 46 pages), the certificate of completion of tax payment (the 47 pages), the record (the 54 through 60, the 126 through 137 pages) and each record (the 137 pages), etc., on the grounds that the victim and Nonindicted Party 1 unilaterally applied for the above facts to the court for the testimony of the victim and the victim’s testimony to the extent that they could be seen as favorable to the victim’s friendly relationship with the Seoul District Court, and thus, the victim’s testimony cannot be deemed as having been submitted to the said court for the purpose of the victim’s testimony to the extent that it exceeded ordinary level.

In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was not aware of any wrong fact by the victim's statement, which is closely related with the non-indicted 1 in the trial process with the non-indicted 1, and thus, the court below's decision was likely to mislead the victim's credibility of the victim's statement, and was affixed with the signature, and the intent to impair the victim's reputation. If the above circumstances are the same, the defendant's above acts do not violate social rules in light of the motive, purpose, means and method, defendant's right to pleading, and the balance between the victim's reputation and the interests of the victim, and thus, they constitute legitimate acts under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the facts charged of this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty, despite the fact that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the justifiable act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore,

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following judgment is rendered after pleading.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is the same as the above Paragraph 2, and as seen above, the defendant's acts do not violate the social norms and do not constitute legitimate acts stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and thus, they are not guilty. Thus, the defendant shall be acquitted by the former part of Article 325

Judges Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Judge)