Open Decision Ledger · Military criminal & justice law
Public-interest defence by analogy for defamation of a superior
Supreme Court, Apr. 16, 2024, 2023Do13333 (judgment)
Case name: 상관명예훼손[군형법상 상관명예훼손죄에 대한 위법성조각사유가 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May Article 310 of the Criminal Act, which sets out the justification of truth in the public interest for defamation under Article 307(1) of that Act, be applied by analogy to conduct punished as defamation of a superior under Article 64(3) of the Military Court Act, for which the legislature provided no such proviso?
Holding
Yes. Although the Military Court Act punishes public defamation of a superior more severely than defamation under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act and omits a proviso corresponding to Article 310, a regulatory gap the legislature did not intend may be filled by applying a similar norm so far as that is justified by the system of the norms, the legislative intent and purpose. The two offences differ only in that the victim is a superior, so their wrongfulness content is essentially the same; whether the conduct is 'in the public interest' is judged by also weighing, in addition, the risk of harm to the military command system and hierarchical order that the offence protects.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
형법 제307조 제1항의 행위에 대한 위법성조각사유를 규정한 형법 제310조는 군형법 제64조 제3항의 행위에 대해 유추적용된다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Article 310 of the Criminal Act, which provides grounds for the exclusion of unlawfulness for an act under Article 307 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Act, must be regarded as applying by analogy to an act under Article 64 paragraph (3) of the Military Criminal Act.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
입법에도 불구하고 입법자가 의도하지 않았던 규율의 공백이 있는 사안에 대하여 법규범의 체계, 입법 의도와 목적 등에 비추어 정당하다고 평가되는 한도 내에서 그와 유사한 사안에 관한 법규범을 적용할 수 있다고 할 것인바
Unofficial English translation
in cases where, notwithstanding legislation, there exists a regulatory gap that the legislator did not intend, the legal norm governing similar matters may be applied to the extent that it is assessed as justifiable in light of the system of legal norms, the intent and purpose of legislation, etc.,
Factors
- 법규범의 체계, 입법 의도와 목적 등에 비추어 정당하다고 평가되는 한도 내에서
- 상관에 대한 사회적 평가, 즉 외부적 명예 외에 군 조직의 질서 및 통수체계 유지 역시 보호법익으로 한다
- 행위의 상대방이 ‘상관’이라는 점에서 형법 제307조 제1항의 명예훼손죄와 구별되는 것일 뿐
- 불법내용에 본질적인 차이가 있다고 보기 어렵고
- 군의 통수체계와 위계질서에 대한 침해 위험 등을 추가적으로 고려함으로써
Unofficial English translation
• to the extent that it is assessed as justifiable in light of the system of legal norms, the intent and purpose of legislation, etc.
• protects as its legal interest, in addition to the social evaluation of a superior officer, that is, external honor, the maintenance of the order and the chain of command of the military organization
• is merely distinct from the crime of defamation under Article 307 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Act in that the counterpart of the act is a 'superior officer'
• it is difficult to regard there as being an essential difference in the unlawfulness of the conduct, and
• by additionally taking into consideration the risk of infringement upon the chain of command and hierarchical order of the military, etc.
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
그러나 입법에도 불구하고 입법자가 의도하지 않았던 규율의 공백이 있는 사안에 대하여 법규범의 체계, 입법 의도와 목적 등에 비추어 정당하다고 평가되는 한도 내에서 그와 유사한 사안에 관한 법규범을 적용할 수 있다고 할 것인바
Unofficial English translation
However, in cases where, notwithstanding legislation, there exists a regulatory gap that the legislator did not intend, the legal norm governing similar matters may be applied to the extent that it is assessed as justifiable in light of the system of legal norms, the intent and purpose of legislation, etc.,
Decisions referred to
대법원 2013. 12. 12. 선고 2013도4555 판결(공2014상, 215), 대법원 2015. 9. 24. 선고 2015도11286 판결(공2015하, 1633)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When the risk of harm to the military command system and hierarchical order is substantial, can the statement still be one made solely in the public interest, and how heavily does that risk count in the judgement?
A later decision explaining how the added consideration of the risk to the command system and hierarchy works in practice would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 64(3) of the Military Court Act that adds a proviso corresponding to Article 310 of the Criminal Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
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 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading treats the decision as setting a new standard, while the independent reading could not confirm precedential novelty; this is a difference in reading the precedent relation, not a contradiction in the holding.
그러나 입법에도 불구하고 입법자가 의도하지 않았던 규율의 공백이 있는 사안에 대하여 법규범의 체계, 입법 의도와 목적 등에 비추어 정당하다고 평가되는 한도 내에서 그와 유사한 사안에 관한 법규범을 적용할 수 있다고 할 것인바Raw 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 Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 13 September 2023 (2023No43), held as the court below that Article 310 of the Criminal Act may be applied by analogy to defamation of a superior under Article 64(3) of the Military Court Act. On that basis it found that the defendant's posting of the comment was a statement of truthful fact solely in the public interest, so that wrongfulness was excluded, reversed the first-instance judgment that had found the charge proved, and acquitted.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. On the first ground it held that the court below had correctly applied Article 310 by analogy and had not misunderstood the law on the scope of that provision. On the second ground it held that the appellate finding that the comment was truthful fact solely in the public interest did not violate the rules of logic and experience or misstate the justification, and it dismissed the appeal in the judgment of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A comment whose content is not a statement of truthful fact, since the acquittal rested on the conduct being truthful fact solely in the public interest.
- A case in which a provision of the statute itself already excludes punishment for statements in the public interest, so that no unintended regulatory gap remains for analogy to fill.
- An offence whose protected legal interest differs essentially from that of defamation, since the Court relied on the absence of any essential difference in wrongfulness.
Record verification notes
Set the comment itself against the record first, and gather what shows that the facts stated are true and that the posting was solely in the public interest, since that is the ground on which the court below acquitted. Then weigh the risk to the command system and hierarchical order that the offence protects, which the Supreme Court required to be considered in addition, and check which version of the Military Court Act was in force when the comment was posted.
From the official text
Points at issue
군형법 제64조 제3항의 행위에 대해 형법 제307조 제1항의 행위에 대한 위법성조각사유를 규정한 형법 제310조가 유추적용되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether Article 310 of the Criminal Act, which provides grounds for the exclusion of unlawfulness for an act under Article 307 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Act, applies by analogy to an act under Article 64 paragraph (3) of the Military Criminal Act (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
군형법은 제64조 제3항에서 ‘공연히 사실을 적시하여 상관의 명예를 훼손한 경우’에 대해 형법 제307조 제1항의 사실적시에 의한 명예훼손죄보다 형을 높여 처벌하도록 하면서 이에 대해 형법 제310조와 같이 공공의 이익에 관한 때에는 처벌하지 아니한다는 규정을 별도로 두지 않았다. 그러나 입법에도 불구하고 입법자가 의도하지 않았던 규율의 공백이 있는 사안에 대하여 법규범의 체계, 입법 의도와 목적 등에 비추어 정당하다고 평가되는 한도 내에서 그와 유사한 사안에 관한 법규범을 적용할 수 있다고 할 것인바, 형법 제307조 제1항의 행위에 대한 위법성조각사유를 규정한 형법 제310조는 군형법 제64조 제3항의 행위에 대해 유추적용된다고 보아야 한다. 이유는 다음과 같다. 군형법상 상관명예훼손죄는 상관에 대한 사회적 평가, 즉 외부적 명예 외에 군 조직의 질서 및 통수체계 유지 역시 보호법익으로 한다. 그런데 군형법 제64조 제3항의 상관명예훼손죄는 행위의 상대방이 ‘상관’이라는 점에서 형법 제307조 제1항의 명예훼손죄와 구별되는 것일 뿐 구성요건적 행위인 명예훼손을 형법상의 개념과 다르게 해석할 이유가 없다. 따라서 군형법상 상관명예훼손죄와 형법상 명예훼손죄의 불법내용에 본질적인 차이가 있다고 보기 어렵고, 문제 되는 행위가 ‘공공의 이익에 관한 때’에 해당하는지를 심사할 때에 상관명예훼손죄가 보호하고자 하는 군의 통수체계와 위계질서에 대한 침해 위험 등을 추가적으로 고려함으로써 위법성조각사유의 해당 여부를 판단하면 충분하다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
군형법 제64조 제3항, 형법 제307조 제1항, 제310조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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