[1] Requirements to constitute "other publications" under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Code

[2] The case holding that the 7 pages of a paper A4 paper drawn up and set up in a computer programming does not constitute "other publications" under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Code

[3] The meaning and standard of determination of "a serious fact" under Article 310 of the Criminal Code, "a case concerning public interest" and "a case concerning public interest"

[1] The reason why the Criminal Code imposes more severe punishment on the crime of defamation by publication, etc. is that the use of publication, etc. by factual means, such as high propagation, reliability, and possibility of long-term preservation that many people can see, in light of the fact that the degree of infringement of legal interests against victims, such as the use of publication, etc., is greater than that of general defamation, it should be viewed as a "other publication" under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Code, even if it is not registered or published, it should be viewed as a "other publication" as a "other publication" under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Code.

[2] The case holding that the 7 pages of a paper A4 paper drawn up and set up in a computer programming does not constitute "other publications" under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Code

[3] Article 310 of the Criminal Code provides that the act of Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Code provides that "no punishment shall be imposed when the act is true and solely for the public interest." In this context, the term "defensive fact" means a fact that is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of its contents, even if the material part is different from truth or somewhat exaggerated expression," and the term "when it comes to the public interest" refers to the public interest when the stated fact objectively is objectively viewed, and an actor also states such fact for the public interest. It includes not only the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a specific social group or its members. Whether the stated fact concerns the public interest or not, considering the contents and nature of the stated fact, the scope of the counter-party to whom the publication of the fact was made, the method of expression itself, and if the expression itself is damaged or damaged by the expression itself, it can not be excluded from the application of Article 30 of the Criminal Code.

[1] Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 310 of the Criminal Act

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 97Do158 delivered on October 9, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2715) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 85Do1143 delivered on March 25, 198 (Gong1986, 729), Supreme Court Decision 97Do133 delivered on August 26, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2980) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 88Do899 delivered on February 14, 198 (Gong1989, 445), Supreme Court Decision 94Do1942 delivered on November 10, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3961), Supreme Court Decision 97Do1979 delivered on October 26, 1997 (Gong1979 decided Oct. 197, 199)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorneys Jeon Chang-he et al.

Seoul District Court Decision 98No1104 delivered on June 25, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to publication in the crime of defamation against publication

In light of the fact that the Criminal Act imposes more severe punishment on the crime of defamation by publication, etc. is that the use of publication, etc. by factual means is more likely to cause infringement on victim’s rights, such as high propagation and reliability that many people can see, and the possibility of long-term preservation, it should be seen as “other publication” under Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act, even if it is not registered or published, it should be seen as a “other publication” under Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act, even if it is not registered or published, it should be seen as a printed publication with the same level of utility and function and can be distributed and used as a publication (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do133, Aug. 26, 1997; 97Do158, Oct. 9, 198).

In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to determine that the instant printed matter prepared, sent, or delivered by the court below is a printed matter of 7 pages A4 paper paper prepared and circulated by a computer network display book, which can be sent by inserting it in an ordinary letter envelope. In light of its appearance, form, and preparation process, etc., it is difficult to view it as a printed matter that can be distributed and circulated in fact with high radio wave, reliability, preservation possibility, etc. identical to registered publications. In addition, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to publications in the crime of defamation of honorary rights in publications as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for revoking illegality

Article 310 of the Criminal Act provides that "the act under Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act shall not be punished if it is true and solely for the public interest." In this context, "the fact" refers to a fact that is consistent with objective facts when examining the overall purport of the content thereof, and where there is a little or exaggerated expression that differs from truth or is somewhat exaggerated. On the other hand, "the time when it comes to the public interest" refers to the public interest when the alleged fact objectively concerns the public interest, and an actor must state the fact subjectively for the public interest. It includes not only the fact widely concerns the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a particular social group or its entire members. Whether the alleged fact concerns the public interest, considering the contents and nature of the alleged fact, the scope of the publication of the fact in question, the method of expression itself, etc., and at the same time, it can not be determined by comparing it with the motive or purpose of 198 of the Criminal Act, referring to the motive or purpose of 197.98.

In light of the above legal principles and records, even if the facts mentioned by the defendant when referring the victim in this case to the inducement of this case are different from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expressions, it cannot be viewed as false facts because the important part is consistent with objective facts when examining the purport of the whole contents like the remaining parts referred to in the victim, and in addition, in light of the defendant's preparation process, distribution counterpart, contents, etc. as stated in its holding, it is reasonable to judge that the defendant's act was for the sake of public interest because it pointed out that the act of the defendant is unreasonable in terms of violation of school regulations and requests correction thereof to the related person, and inform him of the fact that it was for the purpose of public interest. In addition, there is no error of law of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the grounds for excluding illegality in the crime of defamation as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

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

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)