whether the true factual statement, against which an accusation or criminal complaint is made, represents “secrecy of private life.” If that statement is considered as not amounting to secrecy of private life, then there will be an increased number of cases in which the investigation does not proceed further or result in a prosecution because the statement is insufficient to establish a crime from the outset. Consequently, the partial unconstitutionality decision will certainly reduce the present chilling effect on freedom of expression. 6. Finally, taking together the purpose and intent of Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of expression and its boundaries limited by the honor of other persons and the protection of the right to personality, the need to harmonize freedom of expression with the secrecy and freedom of private life guarantee in Article 17 of the Constitution, and the fact that striking down only an unconstitutional part of a provision does not interfere with legislative power and reflects judicial respect for such power, we conclude that the part of the Provision at Issue concerning the stating of facts “that are true and do not amount to secrecy of private life” violates the Constitution. Justices Yoo Namseok (Presiding Justice), Lee Seon-ae, Lee Suk-tae, Lee Eunae, Lee Jongseok, Lee Youngjin, Kim Kiyoung, Moon Hyungbae, and Lee Mison