[1] The standard for determining whether the expressive act of writing posted on the Internet homepage constitutes a publicly alleged fact of defamation

[2] The case holding that among the cities posted on the Internet, it is sufficient for general readers to understand some of the contents as a statement of fact as the expression itself, and it is a fact related to the victim's parliamentary activities, which is related to honor

[1] Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Code

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Hwang Jae-kon

Seoul High Court Decision 2006No2153 decided January 17, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

1. In order to establish the crime of defamation, a statement of fact must be made, and the publicly alleged fact should be made to the extent that the social value or assessment of a specific person might be infringed (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1770, Oct. 25, 1994, etc.). If an expression on the Internet homepage becomes a problem in relation to defamation, whether the expression is publicly alleged, whether it is merely merely a mere rumor, or not, or if it is a rumor, a statement of fact that constitutes a premise even if it is implicitly and implicitly, the distinction between whether the expression is made shall be determined based on the ordinary meaning of the words used in the article, the overall flow of the article, the connection of the words, etc., on the premise that the ordinary reader takes part in the manner of exchanging the article with ordinary care. In addition, it shall be determined based on the ordinary meaning of the words used in the article, the overall flow of the article, the social trend, etc., which is larger than the context in which the article was posted.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below held that the defendant's trial (or the defendant's trial)'s "if the proposal of the civil law was opened in the National Assembly / it is hard for the general readers to understand that it was a statement of fact as its expression itself, and its contents are related to the victim's parliamentary activities, and therefore, it is just and acceptable to determine this judgment of the court below, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the elements of the crime of defamation, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the judgment of the court below and the evidence adopted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below in light of the records, the judgment of the court below that the expression of the defendant exceeded the permissible limit is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the illegality of defamation.

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

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)