Likewise, the Supreme Court observed that “The press report concerning the government or state agency's policy determination or conduct in the course of official duties may negatively affect social evaluation of a public official involved in policy determination or performing his or her official duties. However, unless the contents of a report are evaluated as substantially inadequate as a malicious or extremely careless attack against a public official, the report cannot be deemed as directly constituting defamation against a public official as an individual.” (See Supreme Court 2010Do17237, September 2, 2011.) The Supreme Court further observed that “By punishing the offense of defamation, the Criminal Act aims to protect a person’s reputation, i.e., the social evaluation of a person’s value. Therefore, the State or a local government, as public authorities with the responsibility and obligation to either protect or realize the fundamental rights of citizens, is not the subject but merely the addressee of fundamental rights. Furthermore, matters pertaining to the State or a local government’s policy decision-making and performance should constantly come under broad public scrutiny and criticism. Such scrutiny and criticism can be properly carried out if the freedom of expression regarding them is sufficiently guaranteed. Accordingly, in the relationship between the State or a local government and citizens, the former cannot be the bearer of reputation that is protected via means of punishment, and thus, cannot be the victim of defamation.” (Supreme Court 2014Do15290, December 27, 2016.) By this language, the Supreme Court interprets the crime of factual defamation in such a way that it is prevented from being abused as a means to suppress criticism of public figures or State agencies. (d) If our Court, concerned about a chilling effect on freedom of expression, declares the Provision at Issue wholly unconstitutional, then infringement of personal reputation, or social evaluation of a person’s value, will be overlooked. In fact, such a declaration would involve a serious risk that publicly alleging facts, even if true, will constitute a grave violation of secrecy and freedom of private life if they amount to - 11 -