[1] The standard for determining whether a publicly alleged fact constitutes defamation or defamation

[2] The case holding that a factual expression of value neutrality is not an expression of defamation, in the case of a factual expression that a Korean famous so-called Korean company becomes a Japanese company whose shares in the Japanese liquor company exceed 50%

[3] The meaning of the dissemination of false facts in the crime of interference with business and the degree of intent

[1] Article 307 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 307 of the Criminal Code / [3] Article 314 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Do2188 delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 885) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5077 Delivered on October 25, 2007 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 93Do1278 Delivered on January 28, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 862)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008No1265 Decided July 10, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to defamation

In order to establish defamation, specific facts are likely to infringe on a specific person's social value or evaluation. Whether an expression is defamation should be determined by an objective evaluation in accordance with the ordinary social norms of the expression. Even if an expression is used in value neutrality, if it is judged that a specific person's social evaluation has deteriorated due to social norms, the crime of defamation may be established (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5077, Oct. 25, 2007). However, the court below found that the portion of the Defendant's statement in the Defendant's decision, "I" as the part of the Defendant's statement, which indicated facts, exceeds 50% in Japan, is an expression of value neutrality, and it is reasonable in the judgment of the court below that the victim company's major shareholder or controlling shareholder, as stated in the facts charged, was not guilty of the facts charged, on the ground that there is no possibility of infringement on the victim's social value or the facts charged, or that there is no possibility of infringement on the victim's public opinion or the records.

2. On the crime of interference with business

In relation to the crime of interference with business established by spreading false information through the method of spreading such false information, the crime of interference with business refers to spreading false information to many and unspecified persons about matters different from the objective facts. In particular, in such a case, it is required that the person concerned actively perceived that the fact he has disseminated was false at the time of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do1278 delivered on January 28, 1994).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that there is no evidence to find that the defendant had recognized that the statement was false, and there is no illegality of violating the rules of evidence or misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of interference with business by spreading false facts,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)