The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On April 29, 2015, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on the Internet, the Defendant: (b) on April 29, 2015, the Defendant: (c) “Sari ginseng trademark created by the Department of Shipbuilding in 1940 for the evasion of taxes; and (d) the Department of Shipbuilding in 1940 for the purpose of tax evasion.

“The complainant’s honor was damaged by openly pointing out facts by inserting a video of the content “.”

2. Summary of and judgment on Defendant’s assertion

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant posted a video product, such as a statement of facts constituting an offense (hereinafter “the instant video product”). However, this is not a false fact, but a false fact, and it was true and solely for the public interest.

B. 1) Determination 1) In order for an act of impairing a person by openly pointing out facts to be subject to punishment for illegality pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, the alleged facts are related to the public interest when objectively viewed, and an actor also stated the facts for the public interest. Here, the term “public interest” refers to 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 considering the various circumstances concerning the expression itself, including the contents and nature of the alleged facts themselves, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression, and if the major purpose of the actor expressing the facts is to promote the public interest, it shall be determined by comparing and considering the degree of infringement of reputation, etc.

Even if Article 310 of the Criminal Code is applied, it cannot be ruled out (Supreme Court Decision 13 November 13, 2008).