surgery and putting it at a risk of vision loss, Complainant L.G. sought to publish, inter alia, the name of the veterinarian and the details of the misdiagnosis and mistreatment through a book, information and communication network, or other means. However, Complainant L.G. believed that if he publicly alleged such facts, he would not be excused from a criminal penalty, since Article 307, Section (1) of the Criminal Act provided for sanctions against a person who defames another by publicly alleging facts. On October 6, 2017, Complainant L.G. filed the constitutional complaint in this case under Article 68, Section (1) of the Constitutional Court Act, asserting that the above provision of the Criminal Act infringes his freedom of expression and other rights. B. 2018Hun-Ba330 On February 14, 2016, Complainant K.M. was charged with defaming another person, whose name was K.K., by publicly alleging facts. On January 26, 2018, the Busan District Court imposed on Complainant K.M. a fine of 500,000 won (2017No4468). Subsequently, Complainant K.M. appealed to the Supreme Court. While his appeal was pending (2018Do2371), Complainant K.M. petitioned the Supreme Court to request constitutional review of Article 307, Section (1) of the Criminal Act, but the petition was rejected on June 28, 2018 (2018ChoGi240). Thereafter, on July 30, 2018, Complainant K.M. filed the constitutional complaint in this case under Article 68, Section (2) of the Constitutional Court Act, maintaining that the aforesaid provision of the Criminal Act infringes his freedom of expression and is, thus, unconstitutional. Ⅱ. Subject Matter of Review The subject matter of review in this case is whether Article 307, Section (1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 on December 29, 1995) (hereinafter referred to as the “Provision at Issue”) infringes the - 2 -