thus minimizing restrictions placed by the Provision at Issue on freedom of expression. Additionally, our Court, concerned about the possibility of the abusive use of criminal punishment for factual defamation as a means to restrict and suppress criticism of public figures or State agencies, has minimized the possibility of such risk by articulating how to construe and apply the Provision at Issue and Article 310 of the Criminal Act. The specific criteria for such construction and application are as described below. Namely, in construing and applying positive law related to defamation, and in light of the specific content and manner of defamation, the limits to freedom of expression need to be decided by balancing the two conflicting rights on a categorical basis––in consideration of, inter alia, whether the defamed person is a public figure or a private individual; whether the statement in question bears on a matter of public concern or is within the purely private sphere; whether the defamed person voluntarily exposed himself or herself to the risk of being defamed; and whether the statement in question objectively has public and social value (the right to know) and contributes to the formation of popular opinion or to public discourse. There should be a difference in standard of review between public and private figures and between issues of public concern and within the private sphere. Restrictions on defamatory statements against a public figure concerning his or her public activities should be more relaxed. Some matters concerning a public official's private personal life, even if they have no direct connections to the public official's public activities, may fall within the scope of public concern in certain cases. Matters relating to a public official’s qualifications, ethics and integrity can offer information necessary for the public to criticize and evaluate social activities of the public official and, depending on the contents, might have relevance to his or her official duties. Therefore, questions and criticisms on such matters should be allowed (see Constitutional Court 97Hun-Ma264, June 24, 1999; Constitutional Court 2009Hun-Ma747, December 26, 2013). - 10 -