[1] The case holding that the crime of false accusation is established on the ground that it is alleged that the defendant should be punished as a crime of publishing false facts under Article 250 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act, which is not applicable actively, by filing a complaint that "the defendant published false facts with the knowledge that there is a ground for

[2] Criteria to distinguish between ordinary competition and legal competition agreement

[3] The case holding that the crime of defamation under Article 307 of the Criminal Act and the crime of aiding and abetting candidates under Article 251 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Unlawful Act are related to the standing

[4] The meaning of "statement of fact" in the crime of defamation

[1] The case holding that the crime of false accusation is established on the ground that it is alleged that the defendant should be punished as a crime of publishing false facts under Article 250 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act, which is not applicable actively, by filing a complaint with the court that "the defendant published false facts with the knowledge of the grounds for

[2] The ordinary concurrence refers to a case where a single act actually satisfies the requirements of several crimes. The ordinary concurrence refers to a case where a single act appears to meet the requirements of several crimes in appearance, but actually constitutes only one crime. Whether a single crime is actually one crime or several crimes should be determined in terms of the evaluation of the elements of a crime and the legal interests and interests of the crime.

[3] The case affirming the judgment below which held that the crime of defamation under Article 307 of the Criminal Act and the crime of aiding and abetting candidates under Article 251 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Fraud are related to the standing

[4] The term "statement of fact" in the crime of defamation refers to a report or statement of facts in a specific past or present, time and space, which is a substitute for an expression of opinion, with respect to value judgment or evaluation. The contents of the statement refer to what can be proved by evidence, and in distinguishing between whether a statement is a fact or an opinion, the ordinary meaning and usage of language, possibility of proof, context in which the expression at issue was used, social situation in which the expression was made, etc. shall be considered in light of the overall circumstances.

[1] Article 156 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 40 of the Criminal Act / [3] Articles 40 and 307 of the Criminal Act, Article 251 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice / [4] Article 307 of the Criminal

[2] Supreme Court Decision 84Do782 delivered on June 26, 1984 (Gong1984, 1381) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 96Do1741 delivered on November 22, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 137), Supreme Court Decision 96Do2910 delivered on April 25, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1689)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Park Man-ho et al. and one other

Seoul District Court Decision 96No8483 delivered on October 30, 1997

The appeal is dismissed.

The supplementary appellate brief of the defendant filed after the lapse of the defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the defendant at the joint speech meeting of the court below shows that the contents of the statement "the defendant (the complainant) transferred his/her permanent domicile to commemorate the past record of violation of the National Security Act, and the date of birth was proved to be true." As such, even if the above contents of the statement made by the defendant are the most well known of the defendant, and even if the above contents of the statement made by the candidate are true, it is important material for the public to judge the quality and eligibility of the candidate as a candidate for his/her public office as long as the contents of the statement made by the candidate are true, it is sufficient for the defendant, who is the one of the candidates, to be sufficiently aware of the fact that the facts about public interest are true.

As such, by filing a complaint that "the defendant knew that there exists a ground for excluding illegality, the defendant published the false facts," and ultimately, the defendant's complainant must be punished as a crime of publishing false facts under Article 250 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act, which does not apply to the grounds for excluding illegality under the proviso of Article 251 of the same Act. Therefore, the measures that recognized the criminal facts of each crime of false accusation in the judgment of the court below are justified, and in the process, there is no violation of the law of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the establishment of illegal or false accusation, which misleads the facts in violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal,

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

On the second ground for appeal

The ordinary concurrence refers to a case where a single act substantially satisfies several elements of a crime, and the legal concurrence refers to a case where a single act appears to constitute only one crime, but actually constitutes the elements of several crimes, and the existence of a single crime or a single crime is to be determined in terms of evaluation of the elements of a crime and the legal interests protected by the law (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do782, Jun. 26, 1984). Accordingly, the court below is just in holding that the court below's crime of defamation under Article 307 of the Criminal Act and the crime of candidate's non-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

On the third ground for appeal

The expression of fact in the crime of defamation refers to a report or statement of facts in a specific past or present, time and space, and the contents of the statement can be proved by evidence, and in distinguishing whether the statement is a fact or an opinion, it is necessary to consider the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, possibility of proof, the context in which the speech in question was used, the social situation in which the expression was used, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do1741, Nov. 22, 1996; 96Do2910, Apr. 25, 1997). In the same purport, it is acceptable that the court below recognized the criminal facts in the crime of defamation of the defendant with the same purport, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of defamation, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)