Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Truth, public interest and proof in defamation
Supreme Court, Aug. 13, 2020, 2019Do13404 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 상해·모욕·명예훼손
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
What do 'true facts' and 'solely in the public interest' mean under Article 310 of the Criminal Act, may unlawfulness be negated although the truth is not proved, and who must prove the elements of defamation by a false statement and to what degree?
Holding
Yes. A statement is not punishable under Article 310 where the facts are true and solely in the public interest. 'True facts' means that, read in the light of the whole content, the important parts accord with objective facts, so a slight difference in detail or some exaggeration does not matter; even where truth is not proved, unlawfulness is negated if the actor believed it true and had a substantial reason to believe so. 'Solely in the public interest' requires that the facts be objectively in the public interest and that the actor have stated them subjectively for it; this extends to the concerns of a particular social group and its members as a whole, and an incidental private motive does not exclude Article 310 where the chief motive or purpose was the public interest. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a fact lowering the person's social evaluation was stated, that it was untrue, and that the defendant knew it untrue.
Points at issue, verbatim
적시된 사실이 진실한 것이라는 증명이 없더라도 행위자가 진실한 것으로 믿었고 그렇게 믿을 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 경우 형법 제310조에 따라 위법성이 조각되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Even if there is no proof that the facts stated are true, whether unlawfulness is excluded under Article 310 of the Criminal Act where the actor believed them to be true and there were substantial grounds for such belief (affirmative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 전주지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
한편 허위사실 적시에 의한 명예훼손죄가 성립하기 위하여는 피고인이 공연히 사실의 적시를 하여야 하고, 그 적시한 사실이 사람의 사회적 평가를 저하시키는 것으로서 허위이어야 하며, 피고인이 그와 같은 사실이 허위라고 인식하였어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Meanwhile, in order for the crime of defamation by stating false facts to be established, the defendant must publicly state facts, the facts so stated must be such as to lower a person's social evaluation and must be false, and the defendant must have recognized that such facts were false.
Factors
- 형법 제310조에서 정한 ‘진실한 사실’과 ‘오로지 공공의 이익에 관한 때’의 의미 및 판단 기준
- 적시된 사실이 진실한 것이라는 증명이 없더라도 행위자가 진실한 것으로 믿었고 그렇게 믿을 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 경우 형법 제310조에 따라 위법성이 조각되는지 여부(적극)
- 허위사실 적시 명예훼손죄의 구성요건에 관한 증명책임의 소재(=검사) 및 증명의 정도
Unofficial English translation
• The meaning and criteria for determining 'true facts' and 'matters solely concerning the public interest' as provided in Article 310 of the Criminal Act
• Even if there is no proof that the facts stated are true, whether unlawfulness is excluded under Article 310 of the Criminal Act where the actor believed them to be true and there were substantial grounds for such belief (affirmative)
• The party bearing the burden of proof (= the prosecutor) as to the constituent elements of the crime of defamation by stating false facts, and the degree of proof
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2000. 2. 25. 선고 99도4757 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do4757 decided February 25, 2000.
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1997. 4. 11. 선고 97도88 판결(공1997상, 1516), 대법원 1998. 10. 9. 선고 97도158 판결(공1998하, 2715), 대법원 2001. 10. 9. 선고 2001도3594 판결(공2001하, 2501), 대법원 2007. 12. 14. 선고 2006도2074 판결 / [2] 대법원 2000. 2. 25. 선고 99도4757 판결(공2000상, 906), 대법원 2010. 11. 25. 선고 2009도12132 판결(공2011상, 70)
Burden of proof
The prosecution Stated in the decision
형사재판에서 공소가 제기된 범죄의 구성요건을 이루는 사실은 그것이 주관적 요건이든 객관적 요건이든 그 증명책임이 검사에게 있으므로
Unofficial English translation
In a criminal trial, as regards facts constituting the constituent elements of the crime for which public prosecution has been brought, whether they be subjective or objective requirements, because the burden of proof thereof lies with the prosecutor
Open question and revisit condition
How substantial must the reason to believe a statement true be where its truth has not been proved?
The remand judgment weighing the defendant's reason to believe A's conviction record and B's involvement will show how that reason is applied. A later decision altering the proof of an offence's non-existence, or an amendment to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, requires a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-26
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 5 (factors), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “형법 제310조에서 정한 ‘진실한 사실’과 ‘오로지 공공의 이익에 관한 때’의 의미 및 판단 기준 / 적시된 사실이 진실한 것이라는 증명이 없더라도 행위자가 진실한 것으로 믿었고 그렇게 믿을 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 경우 형법 제310조에 따라 위법성이 조각되는지 여부(적극) / 허위사실 적시 명예훼손죄의 구성요건에 관한 증명책임의 소재(=검사) 및 증명의 정도” vs Independent “진실한 사실 / 오로지 공공의 이익에 관한 때 / 행위자가 진실한 것으로 믿었고 / 그렇게 믿을 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 경우”
The primary reading lists the burden and degree of proof as a separate factor while the independent reading lists only the truth public interest belief and substantial reason elements.
진실한 사실Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How substantial must the reason to believe a statement true be where its truth has not been proved?” vs Independent “Would the same disclosure remain justified if the judgment and its personal information were distributed to the general public rather than only to cooperative members?”
The primary reading asks about the required strength of the substantial reason while the independent reading asks about justification when disclosure extends beyond cooperative members to the general public.
적시된 사실이 진실한 것이라는 증명이 없더라도 행위자가 진실한 것으로 믿었고 그렇게 믿을 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 경우 형법 제310조에 따라 위법성이 조각되는지 여부(적극)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Jeonju District Court, in its judgment of 28 August 2019 (2018No1498), kept the first-instance conviction and rejected Article 310. As to A, it reasoned that the defendant did not know A, spoke to defame the cooperative's representative B and distributed the judgment copy bearing A's personal details, that the words used did not accord with the judgment's statement that the loss was repaid, and that A became known as a former offender to many members. As to B, it held the statement false because the judgment recorded that A embezzled alone and B had a no-suspicion disposition, and that the defendant knew it false.
Supreme Court standard: As to A, the Supreme Court held that the important part of the statement, that A was convicted of embezzling the cooperative's property, accorded with objective facts, that the words used did not state that all property was taken or nothing repaid, and that the chief motive was to inform the members and call the chairman to account, so Article 310 negated unlawfulness. As to B, falsity and the defendant's knowledge of it were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, since a no-suspicion disposition does not prove the non-existence of the offence and the defendant could reasonably have thought B involved. It found no error in the assault conviction, but because that part stood in concurrence under Article 37 of the Criminal Act and required one sentence, it reversed the whole judgment and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the stated facts are untrue and that the defendant knew them untrue.
- A case in which the stated facts concern no interest of the audience or the wider public, so that they are not solely in the public interest.
- A case in which the actor did not believe the statement true or had no substantial reason to believe so.
Record verification notes
Set the important part of the statement against the objective record, here the copy of the embezzlement judgment, before asking whether it is true. Identify the audience precisely, because the Court found public interest in the members' concern with their own contributions and the chairman's responsibility. Keep coarse wording and the disclosure of personal details apart from the chief motive, since neither alone shows a purpose to defame.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 형법 제310조에서 정한 ‘진실한 사실’과 ‘오로지 공공의 이익에 관한 때’의 의미 및 판단 기준 / 적시된 사실이 진실한 것이라는 증명이 없더라도 행위자가 진실한 것으로 믿었고 그렇게 믿을 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 경우 형법 제310조에 따라 위법성이 조각되는지 여부(적극) [2] 허위사실 적시 명예훼손죄의 성립요건 및 판단 기준 / 허위사실 적시 명예훼손죄의 구성요건에 관한 증명책임의 소재(=검사) 및 증명의 정도
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning and criteria for determining 'true facts' and 'matters solely concerning the public interest' as provided in Article 310 of the Criminal Act / Even if there is no proof that the facts stated are true, whether unlawfulness is excluded under Article 310 of the Criminal Act where the actor believed them to be true and there were substantial grounds for such belief (affirmative) [2] The requirements for and criteria for determining the crime of defamation by stating false facts / The party bearing the burden of proof (= the prosecutor) as to the constituent elements of the crime of defamation by stating false facts, and the degree of proof
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 전주지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제310조 [2] 형법 제307조 제2항, 형사소송법 제308조
Read 2026-10-26 · Cross-read 2026-10-26. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger