[Seocho-dong Legal Talk] "Unable to Call a Fraudster a Fraudster..."

"He is a swindler who has seized someone else's property. Swindler, come down!"

At 2 p.m. on November 18, 2017, at a clan association event held in Pohang, Gyeongbuk, local chapter president Mr. A (54) and executive Mr. B (64) shouted this. Candidate Mr. C for the next clan association president was about to give a greeting speech in front of the clan members.

Although there was no personal friendship, Mr. A and others had actively expressed opposition to Mr. C becoming president. It was understood that Mr. A had installed a banner the day before saying "We do not want a shameful president," and a month earlier at another clan meeting, he emphasized that "(Mr. C) should not be made president."

The problem was that Mr. C, who was called a "swindler," had no prior record of being punished for fraud. Following Mr. C's complaint, Mr. A and Mr. B were investigated, and the prosecution indicted them for defamation by false statements.

The first trial sentenced Mr. A and Mr. B to fines of 1 million won each. The first trial court stated the reason for the guilty verdict as "Mr. C consistently testified in line with the charges, and the witnesses' testimonies and circumstances shown in photos at the time also correspond."

In the second trial court, Mr. A and Mr. B argued, "Even if the statements were made, they were for the public interest, so the illegality is excused and they should be acquitted." They claimed, "Mr. C has been criminally punished for forgery of private documents and embezzlement under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes," and "We spoke the truth to provide necessary information to clan members to elect a legitimate representative."

Article 310 of the Criminal Act stipulates that in defamation cases, "if the content of the statement is true and solely related to the public interest, the illegality is excused."

However, the second trial court dismissed their appeal. The second trial court said, "According to fact-finding, Mr. C has a criminal record for perjury inducement and forgery of private documents once, but there is no record of punishment for fraud," and "The facts stated by the defendants cannot be considered true."

This judgment was overturned by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled, "The main intent of the statement was that Mr. C has a history of seizing others' property," and "Since he has a prior conviction for embezzlement, it objectively corresponds to the main part."

It further pointed out, "Nevertheless, the lower court wrongly denied the application of Article 310 of the Criminal Act simply because there was no prior punishment for fraud, concluding that the statement was false." According to Supreme Court precedents, even if some details differ slightly from the truth or are somewhat exaggerated, if the important parts correspond to objective facts in context, Article 310 should be applied.

On the 25th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yusook) announced, "The lower court's ruling is overturned and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.