beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of each sentence shall be suspended against the Defendants.
Reasons
1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal
A. The Defendants’ assertion of mistake is not a statement of fact, but an expression of opinion or abstract judgment, and the facts already known are stated solely for the public interest, and thus it is difficult to deem the Defendants as defamation, even though it is difficult to find the Defendants guilty of defamation, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.
B. Even if the Defendants are found guilty of unfair sentencing, each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A, Defendant C: each fine of KRW 500,000,000, and Defendant B: KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) In the crime of defamation as to the assertion of mistake of fact, the term “statement of fact” means a concept substituted for a “statement of opinion” whose content is a value judgment or evaluation, and refers to a report or statement on specific past or present facts in time and space, which can be proven by evidence. In determining whether a report or statement is a fact or an opinion, the determination ought to be made by taking into account the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the possibility of proof, the context in which the expression in question was used, the social situation in which the expression was made, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1220, Oct. 9, 2008). Regarding the instant case, the statement that the Defendants referred the victim, namely, Defendant A’s “a person who takes management expenses and takes drinking,” Defendant C’s “a person who takes drinking with management expenses”, Defendant C’s “a person who takes drinking with money from residents,” and Defendant B’s “her drinking with money,” refers to a statement of factual relations, and the content of the statement can be proved by evidence. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that it constitutes a fact of defamation.
Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
(2) already known.