Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Disciplinary-referral notice and the public interest in defamation
Supreme Court, Aug. 26, 2021, 2021Do6416 (judgment)
Case name: 명예훼손
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a disciplinary-affairs employee posted at a worksite, on notice boards in the fire-prevention room, machine room and management office, a document stating that a colleague had been referred to a disciplinary procedure, was that announcement a matter of public interest that barred punishment under Article 310 of the Criminal Act?
Holding
No. The Court held that the test requires both that the stated fact be objectively a matter of public interest and that the actor have stated it subjectively for the public interest, and that the question is decided by weighing the content and nature of the fact, the range of recipients, the manner of expression and the degree of harm to reputation. Since a disciplinary allegation is settled only after the disciplinary procedure has run its course, announcing at the referral stage a fact of that kind, before any disciplinary resolution, is not the pursuit of the public interest of smooth and efficient internal operation. The Court also considered that it is difficult to conclude from referral alone that there are grounds for discipline. The acquittal rested on a misapprehension of the law on ‘public interest’.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
여기서 ‘오로지 공공의 이익에 관한 때’라 함은 적시된 사실이 객관적으로 볼 때 공공의 이익에 관한 것으로서 행위자도 주관적으로 공공의 이익을 위하여 그 사실을 적시한 것이어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Here, 'the case solely concerns the public interest' means that the fact stated must, viewed objectively, be a matter concerning the public interest, and that the actor must also have subjectively stated that fact for the public interest.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기의 공공의 이익에 관한 것에는 널리 국가·사회 기타 일반 다수인의 이익에 관한 것뿐만 아니라 특정한 사회집단이나 그 구성원 전체의 관심과 이익에 관한 것도 포함한다.
Unofficial English translation
Matters concerning the public interest here include not only matters concerning the interests of the nation, society, or the general public at large, but also matters concerning the interests and concern of a particular social group or of all of its members.
Factors
- 당해 적시 사실의 내용과 성질, 당해 사실의 공표가 이루어진 상대방의 범위, 그 표현의 방법 등 그 표현 자체에 관한 제반 사정을 감안함과 동시에
- 행위자의 주요한 동기 내지 목적이 공공의 이익을 위한 것이라면 부수적으로 다른 사익적 목적이나 동기가 내포되어 있더라도
- 징계혐의 사실은 징계절차를 거친 다음 확정되는 것이므로 징계절차에 회부되었을 뿐인 단계에서 그 사실을 공개함으로써 피해자의 명예를 훼손하는 경우, 이를 사회적으로 상당한 행위라고 보기는 어려운 점
- 피해자에 대한 징계 의결이 있기 전에 징계절차에 회부되었다는 사실이 공개되는 경우 피해자가 입게 되는 피해의 정도는 가볍지 않은 점
Unofficial English translation
• While taking into consideration the content and nature of the fact stated, the scope of the counterparties to whom the fact was disclosed, the method of such expression, and other circumstances concerning the expression itself, and at the same time
• If the actor's principal motive or purpose was for the public interest, even if other private-interest purposes or motives are incidentally involved
• Where the fact of a disciplinary allegation is confirmed only after undergoing a disciplinary procedure, so that where the victim's honor is impaired by disclosing, at the stage of merely having been referred to a disciplinary procedure, the fact that the victim has been so referred, it is difficult to regard such an act as socially appropriate
• The degree of harm suffered by the victim where the fact of having been referred to a disciplinary procedure is disclosed before a resolution of discipline against the victim is passed is not light
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2007. 12. 14. 선고 2006도2074 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2074 decided December 14, 2007
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2007. 12. 14. 선고 2006도2074 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the disciplinary resolution is made but the grounds for it are kept confidential, does announcing the outcome still fall outside Article 310, or is there a point at which the reason itself must be made public?
The retrial judgment of the Suwon District Court on remand, once it weighs the manner and place of posting and the timing against the disciplinary resolution, would show how this test works on the same facts. A later decision treating notice to a defined internal group differently, or an amendment to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
The holding states both a two part requirement of objective public interest and subjective purpose and a multifactor weighing test, so one reading emphasizes the requirement form while the other emphasizes the totality assessment form.
그 표현 자체에 관한 제반 사정을 감안함과 동시에 그 표현에 의하여 훼손되거나 훼손될 수 있는 명예의 침해 정도 등을 비교·고려하여 결정하여야 하며Raw 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 Suwon District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 7 May 2021 (2020No5182), set aside the guilty verdict of the first instance and acquitted the defendant. Taking the view that the fact of referral is not a private matter but part of the company's public procedure and a proper object of public concern, that the defendant had performed his duties as the employee in charge, that a procedural matter of this kind is of no greater importance or harm than the concrete misconduct that gives rise to it, and that posting rather than individual notice did not change the public character of the referral, the court below held that the content served the public interest of smooth and efficient internal operation and so the illegality was negated.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court could not accept that reading. It held that a public character does not make every step of a procedure open to all, that the company's own manual directed that only the person concerned be notified by post and the document itself limited the recipient to that person, that the document also set out the rough grounds for discipline, that nothing justified posting the document before the employee himself was notified and the site manager's opening and posting of it was itself seriously defective, that the harm to the employee was not light and the asserted public interest was doubtful or could be fully served after the disciplinary resolution, and that the boards were frequented by outsiders. On that basis the appeal was allowed and the judgment reversed and remanded, by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the disciplinary resolution has already been made and the fact is announced then, since the Court held that the public interest can be fully served at that stage and the company's manual allowed announcement after the disciplinary decision.
- A notice sent to the person concerned alone as the operating manual directed, rather than posted on a board where outside contractors pass freely.
- A case in which the actor's main motive or purpose is the public interest, since incidental private motives or purposes do not by themselves bar Article 310.
Record verification notes
Set the file against four points the Court used: the stage at which the fact was settled, whether the document confined its recipient and its grounds, the time and manner of posting relative to the individual notification, and who could reach the place of posting. Then ask whether the same public interest could have been served after the disciplinary resolution, since the Court treated that as decisive on proportion.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 형법 제310조에서 정한 ‘오로지 공공의 이익에 관한 때’의 의미 및 판단 기준 [2] 징계 업무 담당 직원인 피고인이 피해자에 대한 징계절차 회부 사실이 기재된 문서를 근무현장 방재실 등의 게시판에 게시함으로써 공연히 피해자의 명예를 훼손하였다는 내용으로 기소된 사안에서, 피해자에 대한 징계절차 회부 사실을 공지하는 것이 회사 내부의 원활하고 능률적인 운영의 도모라는 공공의 이익에 관한 것으로 볼 수 없다는 이유로, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 명예훼손죄에서의 ‘공공의 이익’에 관한 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Meaning of and criteria for determining 'the case solely concerns the public interest' as provided in Article 310 of the Criminal Act [2] A case in which the defendant, an employee in charge of disciplinary work, was prosecuted on the charge of publicly defaming the victim by posting on a bulletin board at a disaster prevention room at the workplace, etc. a document stating the fact that the victim had been referred to a disciplinary procedure, and in which it was held that the determination of the court below, which viewed the matter otherwise, was erroneous in misapprehension of legal principles concerning 'the public interest' in the crime of defamation, on the ground that notifying the fact of the victim's referral to a disciplinary procedure cannot be regarded as a matter concerning the public interest, such as the promotion of smooth and efficient operation within the company
Summary of the holding
[1] 공연히 사실을 적시하여 사람의 명예를 훼손하는 행위가 진실한 사실로서 오로지 공공의 이익에 관한 때에는 형법 제310조에 따라 처벌할 수 없다. 여기서 ‘오로지 공공의 이익에 관한 때’라 함은 적시된 사실이 객관적으로 볼 때 공공의 이익에 관한 것으로서 행위자도 주관적으로 공공의 이익을 위하여 그 사실을 적시한 것이어야 한다. 여기의 공공의 이익에 관한 것에는 널리 국가·사회 기타 일반 다수인의 이익에 관한 것뿐만 아니라 특정한 사회집단이나 그 구성원 전체의 관심과 이익에 관한 것도 포함한다. 적시된 사실이 공공의 이익에 관한 것인지 여부는 당해 적시 사실의 내용과 성질, 당해 사실의 공표가 이루어진 상대방의 범위, 그 표현의 방법 등 그 표현 자체에 관한 제반 사정을 감안함과 동시에 그 표현에 의하여 훼손되거나 훼손될 수 있는 명예의 침해 정도 등을 비교·고려하여 결정하여야 하며, 행위자의 주요한 동기 내지 목적이 공공의 이익을 위한 것이라면 부수적으로 다른 사익적 목적이나 동기가 내포되어 있더라도 형법 제310조의 적용을 배제할 수 없다. [2] 회사에서 징계 업무를 담당하는 직원인 피고인이 피해자에 대한 징계절차 회부 사실이 기재된 문서를 근무현장 방재실, 기계실, 관리사무실의 각 게시판에 게시함으로써 공연히 피해자의 명예를 훼손하였다는 내용으로 기소된 사안에서, 징계혐의 사실은 징계절차를 거친 다음 확정되는 것이므로 징계절차에 회부되었을 뿐인 단계에서 그 사실을 공개함으로써 피해자의 명예를 훼손하는 경우, 이를 사회적으로 상당한 행위라고 보기는 어려운 점, 피해자에 대한 징계 의결이 있기 전에 징계절차에 회부되었다는 사실이 공개되는 경우 피해자가 입게 되는 피해의 정도는 가볍지 않은 점 등을 종합하면, 피해자에 대한 징계절차 회부 사실을 공지하는 것이 회사 내부의 원활하고 능률적인 운영의 도모라는 공공의 이익에 관한 것으로 볼 수 없다는 이유로, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 명예훼손죄에서의 ‘공공의 이익’에 관한 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제310조 [2] 형법 제307조 제1항, 제310조
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