[2] The case holding that the illegality is not denied in a case where the prosecutor who is in charge denies the suspect's suspicion against the suspect by using the expression that the suspect's uncertain statement on the basis of the witness's crime was established without any additional reinforcement investigation despite his/her strong denial of the suspect's suspicion

[3] In a case where a newspaper reported a news report that defames another person's reputation, the standard for determining whether the news report is true

[4] The case holding that, even if a newspaper report is in the form of "I are suspected of being suspected of being suspected of being suspected of being suspected of being suspected of being suspected of being suspected of being suspected of being suspected of being involved, the news report does not prove that the contents of the report are true unless it is proven that the contents of the report seem to be decent about the facts of the crime of the suspect, and that there

[5] The permissible limit of freedom of expression by a newspaper report

[6] Contents and limitation of the duty of care to be taken by the press in reporting the suspected fact under investigation

[7] The case holding that even if the contents of the article are not true, where the article is objectively prepared based on the materials published and distributed by the prosecutor, although the article was reported without any separate investigation and verification as to the authenticity of the article that was reported by the newspaper reporter from the prosecutor in charge

[8] The case holding that where a reporter of a daily newspaper read the contents of another newspaper newspaper's articles and copies of a detention warrant for a suspect, and posted a conclusive article without any separate coverage as if the suspect was found to have committed a crime, the illegality of defamation against a suspect is not denied

[2] The case holding that the illegality of publishing the suspected fact should not be avoided in the case where the prosecutor, although the suspect strongly denied the suspected fact, he did not make any additional reinforcement investigation, and instead mentioned the suspect's motive for the crime, the content of the company secrets that he leaked, and the future expansion direction of investigation against the competitors, etc. on the basis of the suspect's uncertain statement, and thereby publicly announces the suspected fact against the reporters of each media company on the premise of the press report by the media

[3] In a case where a newspaper reported a news report that defames another person’s reputation, whether the news report is true or not shall be determined based on the impression that ordinary readers would receive an ordinary news article from an article in a manner that ordinary attention and read the ordinary news article, by comprehensively taking into account not only the contents of the article, but also the size and posting of the items and the main body, length of the main body.

[4] The case holding that the newspaper report does not prove the truth, in the case where the title of newspaper articles used a phrase that shows much more active size or ground size than the main sentence, and the contents of the main sentence explicitly indicate the criminal motive of the suspect's crime and the company secret that the suspect disclosed, and where the investigating authority cites the words of the prosecutor's office as they are expected to expand the scope of investigation on the premise that the criminal act of the suspect is true, the report is in the form of "as they are suspected of being under suspicion" and even if the suspect is suspected of such suspicion, unless it is proved that the suspect divulges the company secret.

[5] Even if the freedom of expression by a newspaper report is guaranteed by the Constitution, if the infringement of an individual’s reputation, freedom of privacy, and other legal interests is caused by such infringement, it shall not be determined by weighing and balancing the interests obtained by the freedom of expression and the values achieved by the protection of personality rights. In weighing and balancing these interests, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the public interest of the news report purpose, the public nature of the contents of the news report, the nature of the news report, whether the contents of the news report require prompt reporting, the credibility of the news source (information source), the authenticity and fairness of the contents of the report, the method of expression, and the degree of damage suffered by the victim, etc.

[6] In a case where the contents of a report are about a suspected fact that is being investigated, there is no particular way to confirm the truth of the reported fact, and the contents of the report are tendencyed to accept the report as true, based on the authority of the press and its trust. It is common that damage relief can not be expected sufficiently to be restored solely due to measures such as ex post facto correction or rebuttal reporting due to extensive and rapid spread, even though the report of a newspaper has extensive and rapid wave. Thus, regardless of the truth of the contents of the report, such a report itself does not necessarily have to be sufficient to support the truth of the reported fact, and it is appropriate and sufficient to support the truth of the reported fact, as well as the contents of the report, it should be objective and fair, as well as the contents of the report, and when the report is made, it does not have to have any limit to using the report as soon as possible, it does not have to use any terms or expressions that merely identify the suspect or increase the identity of the private person, and in particular, it does not have to use it as much as possible.

[7] The case holding that even if the contents of the article are not true, where the article is objectively prepared based on the published and distributed materials conducted by the prosecutor, although the article was reported without any separate investigation and verification as to the authenticity of the article that was reported by the newspaper reporter from the prosecutor in charge, the illegality is excluded

[8] The case holding that a daily newspaper reporter’s reading of the contents of other newspaper articles and a copy of detention warrant for a suspect cannot be deemed as a collection of news necessary to secure the authenticity of the contents of the article, and in case where the above reporter, despite being suspected of having committed a crime, carried the article on a conclusive basis as if the crime was confirmed by his own coverage, the swiftness of the news report in daily newspapers cannot be deemed as a degree of excluding the illegality of defamation against the suspect, even though considering the public interest factor in daily newspapers

1. As to Defendant Republic of Korea’s ground of appeal

A. As to the first and second points

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on January 11, 191, 191, Nonparty 2, the representative director of the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter the non-party 1 corporation) was summoned to the above non-party 2 and the non-party 3, the director of the financial management division, at the Seoul District Prosecutor's Office, copied confidential documents, such as the business plan of the non-party 1 corporation, and divulged to the non-party 7, the representative director of the Dongyang Empt Co., Ltd. and the non-party 2 division of the non-party 8, the non-party 3, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the director of the Seoul District Prosecutor's Office, summoned the above non-party 2 and the non-party 1 corporation's logistics division, the non-party 9, the director of the non-party 1 corporation's logistics division, and the defendant 4, the defendant 2 and the non-party 3, the defendant 1 et al., the defendant 2's investigator of the above investigation department.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the publication of suspected facts, such as the theory of lawsuit, or incomplete hearing. There is no reason to argue

B. On the third ground for appeal

Article 27(4) of the Constitution declares the principle of presumption of innocence against a criminal defendant. Article 126 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of disclosure of facts under investigation by a prosecutor, a judicial police officer or any other person related to an official investigation shall be kept confidential and shall respect the human rights of a criminal suspect or another person, and such acts shall be made only based on the results of an investigation by a public authority to give the citizens a strong trust of truth, and thus, an investigative agency’s presentation of facts under investigation shall be made; however, Article 27(4) of the Constitution declares the principle of presumption of innocence; Article 126 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of disclosure of facts under investigation by a public prosecutor, a police officer or any other person related to an official investigation shall be made public prior to the request for a public trial, and shall also be made public in accordance with objective and justifiable methods, such as announcement of facts under consideration of the public interest and objective and objective contents of the facts under consideration of the public interest and the necessity to make public announcement of the facts under investigation authority.

According to the records, the above non-party 2, summoned to the prosecution at the time of the announcement of the investigation results of this case, stated that he was accompanied by the plaintiff et al. to the scene of outflow of company secrets and did not directly witness the crime. The above non-party 9 stated that the plaintiff transferred approximately 20 pages containing the organization outline, marketing strategies, etc. of the non-party 1's company, and that the plaintiff knew the company's secret information through the presentation of confidential documents about the company management method, 91-sale promotion plan, etc., but without knowing the contents of the documents as well as whether it falls under the company's secret. However, the plaintiff stated that "this was a basic strategy of the non-party 1's company." The non-party 3 knew that the documents were leaked to the non-party 1's company, and that the documents were leaked to the non-party 1's non-party 2 and the defendant knew that the documents were stolen, and that the non-party 1's disclosure of confidential information and the facts charged were revoked.

In the same context, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been suspected of divulging confidential information of Nonparty 1, in light of the contents of the Plaintiff’s statement at the time of the above investigation or the circumstances at the time of the crime. However, the charge against the Plaintiff was based on the Plaintiff’s statement, including Nonparty 9, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s statement constitutes confidential information of the company, or whether the documents or details that the Plaintiff transferred or divulged constitute the Plaintiff’s disclosure of confidential information. In addition, as the Plaintiff strongly denied the suspected facts, the prosecutor should have clearly discovered such facts through reinforced investigation, such as summons of the Plaintiff, the party to whom the facts were transferred by the Plaintiff, and Nonparty 7 and Nonparty 8, who were the witness at the time of the above investigation, and thus, it cannot be said that there was no objective and adequate evidence that could sufficiently guarantee the authenticity of the facts at the time of the disclosure of the Plaintiff’s statements to the public, even if the prosecutor did not make such investigation, and thus, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s external disclosure of the facts of the Defendant’s disclosure of the motive or its disclosure of evidence.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the grounds for excluding illegality in the publication of suspected facts such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for argument.

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the above non-party 5, who is the reporter of the social department of defendant 2 newspaper, read the copy of the warrant of the court below on January 22, 1991, and becomes aware of the facts of suspicion against the plaintiff, and, as seen above, the prosecutor in charge of investigation found the facts of suspicion against the plaintiff in the manner of hearing an explanation about the investigation contents, and based on this, the court below found the facts of suspicion against the plaintiff on January 23, 199, under the title of the 6th vertical size called "in the 23th page of the daily newspaper of defendant 2 newspaper of the same month" and the title of "in the 30th group leader of the court below" and the title of "in the 30 group leader of the court below, the article was prepared and published in the 4th size size as shown in the attached Table 2 of the judgment below.

In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below is just and there is no error of law in finding facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

B. On the second ground for appeal

(1) In a case where a newspaper made a report that defames another person’s reputation, whether the report is true or not shall be determined based on the impression that ordinary readers are entitled to receive from an article with common attention and care, taking into comprehensive account not only the contents of the article but also the size and posting of the items and the main body, length of the main body, etc.

However, according to the records, the newspaper articles of newspaper newspaper of defendant 2 is much larger than active people's size or ground area, and the phrase "inform about company secrecy executive officers" and "competitive company distribution organizations, etc." are used to conclude the plaintiff's crime. In addition, the article's title and main text clearly indicate the plaintiff's criminal motive and its contents, as well as the contents of the company secret that the plaintiff revealed, and as if the investigation authorities are scheduled to expand the scope of investigation on the premise that the plaintiff's crime is true, the article of newspaper newspaper of defendant 2 is citing the words of the prosecutor's office related person such as "the direction to investigate whether the plaintiff's prior recruitment is possible". In light of the size and expression of the article, most general readers first of all, who obtained a strong increase in facts about the plaintiff's crime by newspaper articles, and it is easy to read the main text, and even if we read the main text in detail, it is proven that the plaintiff is under suspicion of disclosure of the plaintiff's criminal facts, and thus, it is not proven that the plaintiff is under suspicion of disclosure.

Therefore, the court below's determination that the contents of Defendant 2's report are true solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was detained on charges of crime as stated in the main text of the above article was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for excluding illegality in defamation.

(2) Even if the freedom of expression by a newspaper report is guaranteed by the Constitution, if the infringement of an individual’s reputation, freedom of privacy, and other legal interests is caused by such infringement, it shall not be determined by weighing and balancing the interests obtained by the freedom of expression and the values achieved by the protection of personality rights. In weighing and balancing these interests, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the public interest of the news report purpose, the public nature of the contents of the news report, the nature of the news report, whether the contents of the news report require prompt reporting, the credibility of the news source (information source), the authenticity and fairness of the content of the report, the method of expression, and the degree of damage suffered by the victim, etc.

In particular, in a case where the contents of a report are about a suspected fact that is being investigated, there is no particular way to confirm the truth of the reported fact, and the contents of the report tend to be true based on the authority of the press and its trust. It is common that damage relief by measures such as ex post facto correction or rebuttal reporting, etc. due to extensive and rapid spread, even though the report of a newspaper has extensive and prompt wave, can not expect sufficient restoration of reputation. Thus, such a report alone is not sufficient to support the truth of the reported fact, in considering the seriousness of the damage suffered by a suspect, victim, or his/her neighbors, regardless of the truth of the contents of the report, the media should not only gather sufficient materials to support the truth of the reported fact, but also objectively and fairly, the contents of the report should also be objectively and fairly, and if the report does not have any limit on the use of terms or expressions that merely express the facts of guilt or increase the identity of the suspect, it shall not be permitted that the report should not be disclosed as much as possible, and on the other hand, an investigative agency should not use the report as much as possible.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, when the above non-party 5 perused the copy of the detention warrant at the Seoul District Criminal Court on January 22, 1991 and became aware of the fact that the plaintiff was threatened with the defendant, requesting coverage to the non-party 4, and other reporters were distributed and published by the prosecutor. Based on these coverage materials, the above articles were prepared and published by the prosecutor. Even though the contents of the article cannot be viewed as requiring swiftness and swiftness, the news source of the above articles is the prosecutor directly in charge of the investigation of this case, and it is hard to verify the facts through direct coverage of the plaintiff. Furthermore, although the plaintiff is detained, it appears that the above articles were used to be defined as crimes by the plaintiff, and the contents of the articles are not prepared and published separately from the articles of this case, and it is not easy for the prosecutor to present the contents of the articles of this case based on the contents of the article of this case without any specific direction of the investigation of the plaintiff as a whole.

Thus, the decision of the court below that dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 newspaper company is just in its conclusion, and the above error of the court below is not deemed to have affected the judgment. Ultimately, the argument is without merit.

3. As to Defendant 3’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on December 18, 190, the court below rejected the evidence that the plaintiff sent to the above non-party 7 the above non-party 7 a 1988 "S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.

In light of the records, this fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts, such as theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for argument.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the records, on January 23, 1991, Nonparty 6, who is the reporter belonging to the social department of Defendant 3 newspaper company, read the article before being published in the daily newspaper of Defendant 2 newspaper company, perused the copy of the detention warrant against the Plaintiff, and on the same day, prepared and reported the article as shown in attached Tables 3 and 4 of the judgment below in the daily newspaper of Defendant 3 newspaper company, and the fact-finding of the court below that the non-party 6 did not make any separate coverage is justified.

In the same way, the above non-party 6 cannot be deemed to have fulfilled the necessary coverage to secure the authenticity of the contents of the article solely on the basis of the entry of the warrant of detention against the plaintiff who served as the basis for each of the articles of this case or reading the articles of the daily newspaper of defendant 2 newspaper. Furthermore, although the contents of this article are suspected of divulging the secrets of the non-party 1, the plaintiff merely posted the article in a conclusive manner as if the plaintiff was confirmed by his own direct coverage as if it was confirmed. Thus, even if the swiftness of the report in a daily newspaper takes into account the public interest factor, the publication of such article cannot be deemed to have reached the extent that the illegality of the act of defamation against the plaintiff would be avoided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da3828, May 28, 1996).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the grounds for excluding illegality in defamation, such as theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for argument.

C. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

In light of the records, it is just that the court below calculated consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff from the report of this case as 15,00,000 won in consideration of all the circumstances such as the plaintiff's age, academic background, occupation, family relation, etc., and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation standard of consolation money like the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground to

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)