The case holding that no specific statement of fact does not constitute defamation;

In the case of a large amount of relationship between the victim and the victim, “I am the same as this dog path, the year of the city pathy, the same as the fym that of the fymnm that of the fymnm that of the fymnm that of the fym that of the fymnm,” the above speech content itself is nothing more than a specific fact that could undermine the social evaluation of the victim, but it is merely an abusive theory that emphasizes abstract judgment or fymal expressions with respect to the victim’s morality, and it is difficult to view that it constitutes defamation under Article 311 of the Criminal Act.

Articles 307 and 311 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do2280 Delivered on November 24, 1981

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Jeonju District Court Decision 85Do216 delivered on June 26, 1985

Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

The part concerning Defendant 2 among the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the Defendants’ violation of the law against the punishment of violence, etc.

According to the evidence of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendants' criminal facts are sufficiently recognized and the contents of the evidence preparation are examined, so there is no error of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, which is without merit.

2. We examine Defendant 2’s ground of appeal on defamation.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the court of first instance recognized Defendant 2 to have damaged the honor of the co-defendant of the court below by making the same group of the court of first instance "the same year as that of the defendant 2 who created the house of the court of first instance to the extent that he did not have an awareness of being able to do so," and applied Defendant 2 to the crime of defamation under Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act.

However, there is no difference between the crime of defamation and insult in terms of the so-called external reputation, which is a social evaluation of human value. However, defamation requires defamation by pointing out specific facts that may undermine people's social evaluation, which is not a specific fact, but a simple abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that impairs social evaluation, and is a heavier punishment.

Defendant 2’s statement, such as the fact at the time of the trial of pro-Japanese with respect to the co-defendants of the court below, is nothing more than a specific fact that would per se undermine the social evaluation of the above victim, but it is merely an exaggeration of abstract judgment or anti-defensive appraisal expression, which the defendant has in relation to the morality of the co-defendants of the court below, and it is difficult to view that it constitutes defamation under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act, even though it constitutes insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to defamation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and as to Defendant 2, as concurrent crimes of violation of the above Act and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, one punishment is imposed within the scope of severe punishment, and thus, the part of the judgment of the court below against the same defendant cannot be reversed in its

3. Therefore, Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed, and the part concerning Defendant 2 among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)