[1] The case holding that the judgment of the court below which acknowledged the crime of defamation was against the rules of evidence by concluding that the falsity of the alleged facts is presumed despite the determination of the defendant's interest

[2] Determination as to whether the alleged facts relate to the public interest

[3] In a case where an individual’s private personal information is indicated, if the main motive of the statement is for the public interest, whether it can be deemed that it constitutes a public interest under Article 310 of the Criminal Code

[4] The case holding that although a professor of a new abuse school stated the fact that he defames a specific person, it is for the public interest

[5] The case holding that a statement made by inducing a defendant to make a statement for the purpose of filing a complaint against a person who made a secret recording cannot be seen as having a possibility of dissemination, and therefore there is no performance

[1] The case holding that the court below found the defendant guilty of defamation on the ground that the evidence suspected of credibility was adopted or the falsity of the timely facts was presumed without reasonable grounds, and that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts contrary to the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt that the defendant was guilty, since the conviction of the defendant in a criminal trial should be based on evidence with probative value which could lead the judge to believe that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

[2] Whether a publicly alleged fact relates to the public interest shall be determined by comparing and considering all the circumstances regarding the expression itself, such as the specific contents of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the luminous compromise within the scope of the counter-party to which the publication of the relevant fact was made, and the method of expression, etc., and at the same time, comparing and considering the degree of infringement of other persons’ reputation that may be damaged or

[3] Even if a private fact is about an individual's personal affairs, it may be a material for criticism or evaluation of the social activities in accordance with the nature of the social activities related to him/her or the degree of influence on society through such activities. Thus, since the facts alleged about an individual's personal affairs are for the public interest, if the main motive of the statement is for the public interest, there are cases where it can be deemed that the public interest under Article 310 of the Criminal Code is about the above meaning.

[4] The case holding that while a professor of a new abuse school pointed out a fact that a specific person was designated as a actual leader and defames his reputation in the process of criticisming the old spawn that is a religious organization through publications, etc., it was an act for the public interest rather than for the purpose of defamation

[5] The case holding that it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant's statements about privacy, such as the victim's female problem, etc., committed against a person suspected of leading the defendant to speak in advance in order to collect and secure documentary evidence so that the defendant can file a complaint against defamation, is likely to spread to other persons than the investigative agency, and thus, it is hard to conclude that such statements are likely

[1] Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 310 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 310 of the Criminal Act / [4] Articles 309 (1) and 310 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995) / [5] Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 92Do3160 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2188), Supreme Court Decision 93Do1035 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2199), Supreme Court Decision 94Do1942 delivered on November 10, 195 (Gong1995Ha, 3961) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 89Do174 delivered on November 14, 1989 (Gong190, 72), Supreme Court Decision 93Do923 delivered on March 17, 195 (Gong195, 178) / [5] Supreme Court Decision 94Do2989 delivered on July 26, 198 (Gong1998, 29489)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Solomonmon General Law Office et al.

Daejeon District Court Decision 94No381 delivered on November 25, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and defense counsel are also examined.

1. As to whether the alleged facts are false

원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은, 피고인이 적시한 "구원파의 실질적 지도자인 공소외 1 사장은 독일에서 15분간의 간증을 부탁받고 40분간 지리멸렬하게 얘기하다 강단에서 끌려 내려져 망신을 당하였다"는 사실이 허위임은 증인 공소외 1, 최재심의 각 진술, 독일인 퀼의 서신의 기재를 종합하여 이를 인정할 수 있다고 판단하였다.

However, according to the evidence adopted by the court below, since Non-Indicted 1, around October 5, 190, entered into the complaint of this case, the non-Indicted 2 Co., Ltd., which he manages around 190, stated that the above non-Indicted 1, who was habitually aware of the above fact that the above non-Indicted 1 had been aware of the fact that the above non-Indicted 1 had been aware of the fact that the above non-Indicted 1 had the non-indicted 1 and the above non-indicted 4 Co., Ltd., had the non-indicted 1 and the above non-indicted 1 do not know of the fact that the non-indicted 1 had the non-indicted 4 Co., Ltd., who was habitually aware of the fact that the above non-indicted 1 had the non-indicted 1 and the above non-indicted 4 Co., Ltd., Ltd., had the non-indicted 1 and the above non-indicted 1, who had been aware of the fact that the defendant had been aware of the new fund through the non-indicted 1, etc.

다음으로 증인 최재심은 자신이 구원파 교인임을 부인하고 있으나 1976.경 공소외 1이 베를린에서 독일에 있는 구원파 간호원을 위하여 개최한 수양회에 참석하였던 사실을 시인하고 있으며, 이 사건 수사절차에서 공소외 1에게 유리하고 피고인에게는 불리한 자료로 사용될 수 있게 하기 위하여 공소외 1과 그의 측근에게 진술서를 3회나 작성하여 주고 또 독일인 퀼로부터 무려 14년 전의 사건에 관하여 스스로 아래에서 보는 바와 같은 서신까지 받아 이를 수사기관에 제출하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 원심 법정에서는 문제의 강연 직후에 찍은 사진 원본을 자신이 그 때까지 보관하여 왔다면서 이를 제출하였음을 알 수 있는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 최재심 또한 구원파의 교인이 아니라고 하더라도 구원파나 공소외 1과 매우 밀접한 관계에 있는 자임을 쉽사리 추지할 수 있으므로, 과연 증인 최재심에게 객관적이고 공정한 진술을 기대할 수 있을는지 의문이라고 아니할 수 없다.

나아가 공소외 1이 독일에서 문제의 강연을 할 때 현장에 있었다는 독일인 퀼의 서신에 관하여 보면, 이는 퀼이 1990. 10.경 위 최재심 앞으로 보낸 서신으로서, 위 강연이 두 번의 통역을 거치는 관계로 약간 길어지기는 했지만 아무런 문제나 항의 없이 마쳐졌으며 참석한 모든 사람들이 많은 관심을 가지고 진지하게 강연을 듣는 분위기였다는 내용의 것이나, 한편 피고인이 퀼로부터 1977. 10.경 받았다는 서신에는 자신이 추천한 공소외 1이 보잘 것 없는 강연을 하여 참석자들에게 망신스러웠다는 내용이 기재되어 있는 점에 비추어 보면, 최재심이 퀼로부터 받았다는 위 서신 또한 선뜻 믿기 어려운 것이라고 하겠다.

In addition, the court below stated that even if people have come to know without raising any special issue for ten years or more until now, it is presumed that the above lectures were smoothly progress, and that the falsity of the above alleged facts is presumed to be presumed. However, since the fact itself is not considered to be of a nature that can cause a special problem to the people, the court below's explanation in this part is not acceptable.

In a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant. The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence suspected of credibility is adopted or the falsity of the timely facts is presumed without reasonable grounds. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

2. As to the purpose and public interest of the defamation

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant's criticism against the non-indicted 1 is a mere fact-finding that can reduce social evaluation in light of his status if the non-indicted 1 is a sect of the old sect, and that the defendant's alleged fact-finding of the above paragraph (1) is about the possibility of infringing on the victim's social value or evaluation. It is false, it is a single sect, which is a single sect of the old sect, its doctrine, and the private individual non-indicted 1, which is a mere separate character, and the defendant is confused with the criticism against the old sect. If the non-indicted 1 is a sect of the old sect of the old sect, the non-indicted 1 can be a sect character defect with the old sect, and the defendant's alleged fact-finding by the non-indicted 1 is not related to the private personal affairs of the non-indicted 1, which are unrelated to the old sect, and thus, the defendant's assertion that the above facts were not unlawful for 10 years.

Article 310 of the Criminal Act provides that "if the act under Article 307 (1) is true and solely for the public interest, it shall not be punished." Thus, if a person’s act by openly pointing out a fact is objectively about the public interest in view of the fact alleged in order not to be subject to punishment due to dismissal of illegality in accordance with the above provision, and is objectively related to the public interest, and the person who committed the act should also indicate the fact for the public interest. In this case, the issue of whether the alleged fact constitutes the public interest shall be determined by comparing and considering all the circumstances related to the expression itself, such as the specific contents of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the optical narrowness of the scope of the other party whose publication was made, the method of expression, etc., as well as the degree of infringement of other person’s reputation that may be damaged or damaged by such expression (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1942 delivered on November 10, 195).

In addition, even if a private fact is about an individual's personal affairs, it can be a material for criticism or evaluation of the social activities according to the nature of the social activities related to it or the degree of influence on society through it. Thus, the publicly alleged fact about the individual's personal affairs also can be deemed as about the public interest under Article 310 of the Criminal Code in the above sense, if the principal motive for the public interest is for the public interest.

According to the records of this case, the defendant's lecture, interview or dismissal as stated in the judgment of the court below is conducted by the request of a church, a press organization, television broadcasting station, magazine, etc. The strong listener is most of the believers or believerss, and the magazine or television broadcast is mainly read or viewed by the readers, and the contents of the above lecture, interview or debate are mainly different from those of the existing readers, and the harmful effects are different from what is caused by the past Professor Won-ri's religious affairs. As such, it is acknowledged that the defendant was not able to have made a considerable amount of money from the past Professor Won-ri, Gi, Giwon, Giwon, Kiwon, Kiwon, church, and closing library, etc., and that the defendant was able to make a public announcement of the facts that he had made funds from the past Professor Won-ri's religious affairs or that he had a lot of money from the past Professor, and that it was made out of the defendant's new Gawon's religious affairs or its new funds from the past.

In full view of all the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the behavior of Nonindicted Party 1 referred to in the above lecture, interview or dismissal language by the defendant is about the public interest in the sense that it can be a material for criticism or evaluation of the social activities of the same person who was exercising significant influence on society when objectively viewed that the behavior of Nonindicted Party 1, which was referred to in the above lecture, interview or dismissal letter, is about the public interest in the sense that it can be a material for criticism or evaluation of the social activities of the same person who was exercising significant influence on society. Moreover, the defendant also explains that the actual network against Nonindicted Party 1, to the senior believers, etc., was one of the motive that the defendant left the Guide, rather than for the purpose of slandering Nonindicted Party 1, and it is reasonable to deem that it is an act for the public interest for the purpose of

Nevertheless, the court below held that the facts alleged by the defendant cannot be deemed to be related to the public interest, and that there was a purpose of defamation against the defendant against the non-indicted 1. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the purpose of defamation in the crime of defamation by means of publication, etc., or by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, and it is evident that such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. As to the performance

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since dialogue between the defendant and the non-indicted 1's female problem, etc., such as Kim Chuncheon or Jeon-young, was a new letter or a franite, and thus there is no possibility of spreading it by forming and disseminating a trust relationship that could be mutually confidential in relation to such status relationship. However, in the next part, dialogues should be viewed as a long-term, Kim U.S., Choi Jong-jin, and Choi Jin as all of the defendant were first or twice people, and thus, there is no possibility of spreading it through the fact that the defendant did not have a personal relation or a trust relationship that could be confidential for the facts alleged by him. Thus, the court below determined that there was a public performance of the fact in the

However, according to the records, the above Kim Jong-sung and Jeon Jong-hee were the believers of the old party, who had almost no day after the defendant left the old party. The defendant was found to have discovered his own opinion and consulted his opinion to him, and if he knew about his personal or family problems due to the old party wave, he would like to leave the old party or his own body if he was aware of the exact facts about the deceased party Kim Jong-sung and Kim Jong-chul's personal affairs through his false statement, and led the defendant to make the same statement as stated in the facts charged, and the defendant was aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the above fact that he had been the deceased party's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's pa.

If the facts are as above, six women, such as the above Kim Jong-hwan, are those who are new members of the Gu, or who are closely related with the former Kim Jong-hwan, and they are suspected of inducing the defendant to speak as described in the facts charged in order to collect and secure evidence in advance so that the defendant can file a complaint against the crime of defamation. Thus, if we look at this, it is difficult to conclude that women can spread the defendant's statements about private life, such as women's problems, etc. of the above non-party 1, to other persons than investigation agencies. In addition, it is difficult to conclude that they are likely to spread the defendant's statements about private life, such as the above non-party 1, to other persons than investigation agencies. Since the public performance nature in the crime of defamation is an element of the crime of defamation, it is necessary for the actor to recognize the public performance as a content of the act's intentional act. If following the above circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that at least

In determining otherwise, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the public performance in the crime of defamation and by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)