Yoo Namseok, Lee Suk-tae, Kim Kiyoung, and Moon Hyungbae, who filed a dissenting opinion, as set forth in Ⅵ below. Ⅵ. Dissenting Opinion of Justices Yoo Namseok, Lee Suk-tae, Kim Kiyoung, and Moon Hyungbae We disagree with the opinion of the Court and believe that the Provision at Issue infringes the freedom of expression of Complainants in violation of the rule against excessive restriction. The reasons for our opinion are explained below. A. Legitimacy of the Purpose and Appropriateness of the Means Because the Provision at Issue serves the goal of protecting the reputation of individuals, namely their right to personality, by prohibiting factual defamation, we recognize the legitimacy of this legislative purpose. Additionally, because inflicting criminal sanctions on a person who violates such prohibition may have a considerable restrictive effect on factual defamation, we also recognize the appropriateness of this means. B. Least Restrictive Means 1. Article 21, Section (1) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression by providing that “All citizens shall enjoy freedom of the press and freedom of publication . . . .” Freedom of expression allows the members of society to freely exchange diverse thoughts and ideas and to openly debate and freely criticize public issues. The resultant free discussion and competition of ideas enable the formation of a democratic will, and in this connection freedom of expression is an essential component of democracy. - 15 -