sua sponte investigation by a State investigative agency or to a criminal trial. Thus, we observe that the possibility of being under investigation and trial proceedings alone suffices to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, even if the expressive activity could be later found by a court to fall within the ground of justification under Article 310 of the Criminal Act. Further, Article 310 of the Criminal Act imposes no punishment “if the facts alleged are true and if solely concerned with the public interest” and, in this regard, a chilling effect on freedom of expression is more likely to occur given the burden of proving, in criminal investigation and trial proceedings, the public interest. In relation to this, the Minister of the Ministry of Justice, an interested person, argued that the crime of factual defamation does not, through Article 310 of the Criminal Act, produce a chilling effect on freedom of expression. The minister cited as representative examples (1) a case in which the petitioner was found not guilty after being charged with defamation under Article 70, Section (1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection for publishing on an internet forum a disparaging statement about the unacceptable treatment the petitioner received from an animal hospital, and (2) a case in which the petitioner was found not guilty after being charged with defamation under Article 61, Section (1) of a former version of the same Act for posting on a Q&A board of an internet portal a one-sentence comment making a subjective evaluation that the result of the plastic surgery on the petitioner was unsatisfactory (see “Summary of Oral Argument” of August 13, 2020, pp. 14-16). It is correct that the Supreme Court entered findings of not guilty in both cases. However, according to relevant records, prosecutors filed charges after determining that the conduct of the petitioners constituted defamation under the above versions of the Act, and the appellate courts sustained the defamation charges after finding that the statements were made for the purpose of disparagement, and not for the public interest ((1) Seoul Eastern District Court 2009No1721, June 11, 2010; (2) Seoul - 20 -