As regards this provision, the Court observed that “Firstly, even absent a proof of truth of the defamatory statement, when the charged acted with mistaken but justified belief in its truth, the crime of defamation is not established. Secondly, the requirement of ‘if solely concerned with the public interest’ should be broadened in its application when viewed from the perspective of guaranteeing freedom of the press. Public value of the facts that objectively need to be known by citizens ought to be recognized with due regard to the citizens’ right to know, and the public interest with respect to a private person may be acknowledged by considering the nature of the societal activities this person is involved with and the societal implications of such involvement.” (See Constitutional Court 97Hun-Ma265, June 24, 1999.) By this language, the Court has declared that chilling freedom of expression should be minimized through a flexible application of Article 310 of the Criminal Act. Likewise, the Supreme Court observed that “‘true facts’ in Article 310 of the Criminal Act means facts, considering the purport and intent of their general content, whose major thrust accords with objective facts and whose details can be slightly different from the truth or somewhat exaggerated, and ‘if solely concerned with the public interest’ in the above provision indicates the facts alleged must be, from an objective standpoint, concerned with the public interest and the defamer must have, from a subjective perspective, alleged the facts for that interest. Here, facts ‘concerned with the public interest’ include not only those facts concerned with the interests of the State, society, and the majority of members of the general public, but also those facts concerned with the agendas and interests of a particular social group or all members thereof. Article 310 of the Criminal Act may not be excluded from being applied so long as the primary motive or purpose of the defamer is concerned with the public interest, even if his or her ancillary purposes or motives include personal benefit.” (Supreme Court 2006Do2074, December 14, 2007.) By this language, the Supreme Court has broadly construed the scope of application of the above Article 310, - 9 -