For individuals who believe that they have been unjustly harmed by others, it is desirable for them to resolve their problem pursuant to civil or criminal procedures, such as damages claims or criminal complaints. Publicly alleging facts to injure the reputation of the perpetrator without first pursuing the legal procedures can be abused as a means of retaliation that is not commensurate with the liability of the perpetrator. For this reason, it is necessary to curb the possibility of such abuses. Absent a public nature required by Article 310 of the Criminal Act, publicly alleging the weaknesses and errors of an individual simply to reveal that his or her reputation is a vain one is inconsistent with the purpose of freedom of expression, which is to encourage the formation of a democratic will through free discussion and competition of ideas. Additionally, as examined earlier, the restrictions placed by the Provision at Issue on freedom of expression are minimized by the ground for justification under Article 310 of the Criminal Act as well as by the Court’s and the Supreme Court’s constructions thereof. Having regard to these considerations, the Court finds that the Provision at Issue does not upset the balance of interests by excessively restricting freedom of expression in order to protect personal reputation. 4. Sub-conclusion Therefore, the Provision at Issue does not infringe freedom of expression by violating the rule against excessive restriction. Ⅴ. Conclusion The complaint of Complainant L.G. is rejected as unjustified, and the Provision at Issue is not in violation of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court renders its decision as set forth in Holding. This decision was made with a unanimous opinion of participating Justices except Justices - 14 -