know and accords, in principle, with the public interest serving present and future generations of humanity. Thus, speaking truth, per se, should not be a crime in the liberal democratic basic order. However, the Provision at Issue includes, in principle, the act of stating true facts as an element of defamation. As a consequence, this Provision infringes–– through a chilling effect associated with the risk of investigation and criminal penalties––the freedom of expression, right to know, freedom of conscience, and bodily freedom, and is therefore unconstitutional. B. 2018Hun-Ba330 The Provision at Issue stipulates punishment for stating true facts that defame another person. In consequence, the Provision at Issue restricts a citizen’s freedom of expression. However, because stating true facts merely damages “standing erroneously acquired through unawareness of facts,” or “vain reputation,” abridging freedom of expression to protect this reputation cannot be recognized as serving a legitimate purpose. Nor can the least restrictive means and the balance of interests be recognized, because, inter alia, the means employed are criminal rather than civil. Therefore, the Provision at Issue violates the Constitution by infringing freedom of expression. Ⅳ. Assessment A. Issue of This Case The first sentence of Article 21, Section (4) of the Constitution provides that “Neither the press nor any publication shall violate the honor or rights of other persons, or public morals or social ethics.” This is merely a clause reiterating the responsibilities and duties flowing from the freedoms of the press and of publication while simultaneously - 4 -