[1] The meaning of "the purpose of slandering a person" under Article 309 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code and the method of determining such "the purpose"

[2] Relation to Articles 309(1) and 310 of the Criminal Code

[3] The case holding that the purpose of defamation by publication is not recognized

[1] "Purpose of slandering a person" under Article 309 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code shall be determined in consideration of the contents and nature of the relevant statement, the scope of the other party to whom the publication of the relevant fact was made, the method of expression, etc., as well as the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression.

[2] "Purpose of slandering a person" under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Code is required for the intention or purpose of harm, and it is in conflict with one another in the direction of subjective intention of an actor as well as for the public interest. Thus, the provision that no punishment shall be imposed in the case of the public interest under Article 310 of the Criminal Code does not apply to acts under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Code that require the purpose of slandering a person, and only to acts under Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Code that do not require that purpose is applicable to acts under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Code that do not require that purpose. On the other hand, in a case where a publicly alleged fact is related to the public interest, it may be an issue of whether the crime of defamation under Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Code is established, and it may be an issue of whether the illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal

[3] The case holding that since it is difficult to see that there is a purpose of defamation by publication, and even if it constitutes defamation under Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Code, illegality is excluded by Article 310 of the Criminal Code

[1] Article 309(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 307(1), 309(1), and 310 of the Criminal Act / [3] Articles 307(1), 309(1), and 310 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3045 decided Jun. 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1874), Supreme Court Decision 2000Do329 decided Aug. 23, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2248), Supreme Court Decision 2001Do7095 decided Dec. 10, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 407) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Do158 decided Oct. 9, 198 (Gong198Ha, 2715), Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2180 decided Feb. 25, 200 (Gong2080, 2085)

Defendant

Defendant

Han Law Firm, Attorney Han-soo

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2003No43 delivered on September 19, 2003

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The judgment of the court below

The summary of the facts charged against the defendant is that "the defendant is the Director General of the Korean Labor-Management Headquarters," as an agent for cleaning the victim's new management, is engaged in the business of cleaning agency contract concluded with the Seocheon-gun and then again as the chairperson of the neighboring industry, who was dismissed and promoted the establishment of the cleaning agency contract with the Seocheon-gun and the cleaning agency for the same purpose. The defendant sent the above cleaning agency contract to the defendant for the improvement of the terms and conditions of the contract to inform the victim's own business for the improvement of the terms and conditions of the contract, such as the 2002. The defendant sent the above cleaning agency contract to the defendant for the improvement of the terms and conditions of the contract, which was ordered by the Seocheon-gun's Lee Jong-gun and the 207. The court below found the above cleaning agency contract to be for the improvement of the terms and conditions of the contract to the defendant's own business for the improvement of the terms and conditions of the contract, such as the 3,000 Won-gun's industrial office.

2. The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot accept the above recognition and judgment of the court below.

Article 309(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act provides that "the purpose of slandering a person" is to determine whether there is a purpose of slandering a person because it requires an intention or purpose of harm, shall be determined in consideration of the contents and nature of the relevant statement, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the method of expression itself, and the degree of infringement of honor that may be damaged or damaged by the expression, and shall be compared and considered (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do3045, Jun. 28, 2002; 200Do329, Aug. 23, 2002; 200Do329, etc.). In addition, Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act provides that "the purpose of slandering a person" is in conflict with the direction of subjective intention of an actor for public interest, and therefore, Article 310(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides that if there is no special reason to punish a person against the public interest, it shall not be applied to the purpose of defamation of Article 97(10.

In light of the records, the Gangwon-do Council concluded a contract on March 199 to collect and transport domestic waste within the Seocheon-gun, which is the 2nd executive officer of the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province, and concluded an entrustment contract with the 2nd executive officer of the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province, to ensure that four drivers and 16 street workers succeed to the employment for three years, and that the neighboring industry entered into an employment contract with the employees who succeed to the employment and renewed the contract on April 2001, it is difficult for the Korea Special Self-Governing Province to enter into an employment contract with the 2nd executive officer of the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province, which is the 2nd executive officer of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the 2nd executive officer of the 2nd executive officer of the Korea Special Metropolitan City.

In this context, the defendant prepared a policy proposal to the effect that it is desirable to entrust the collection and transportation of domestic waste to cleaning vehicles and corporations established by street cleaners, who were affiliated with Ycheon-gun, such as in the case of neighboring Won-gun, in accordance with the direction of the Gangwon-do Local Headquarters Chairperson, and submitted it to the Gangwon-do Governor of Gangwon-do, the head of the Seocheon-do, the head of the Seocheon-do, the head of the Seocheon-gun, and the Seocheon-gun, who explained the situation of the policy proposal to Kim Yong-sik who was informed by the Lee Young-gun, the chairperson of the Green Industry, and sent the policy proposal to Kim Yong-sik by facsimile. Therefore, the defendant explained the process of implementing the policy proposal to Kim Yong-sik, and sent the policy proposal by facsimile to the head of the office of the office of the Korea Nancheon-do Local Headquarters, and the workers belonging to the neighboring industry could not maintain the existing working conditions in the process of performing the work, and the situation of the defendant's subjective social interest to prevent social problems, such as social problems.

In the end, the facts charged of this case are not false, but it is difficult to view that the defendant had "the purpose of avoiding" the victim, and therefore, it does not constitute defamation by publication under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Act. Furthermore, even if the facts charged of this case constitute defamation under Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Act, it is reasonable to view that the illegality is excluded by Article 310 of the Criminal Act as seen above.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the facts charged in this case constitute defamation by publication under Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act on the premise that the defendant had "the purpose of avoiding the victim" constitutes a crime of defamation by publication under Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, shall be deemed to have committed a mistake of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, or a mistake of law under Articles 309 and 310 of the Criminal Act.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)