[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 the truth that the news report is true, unless it is proven that the content of the report seems to be decent about the facts of the crime of the suspect, and that

[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, the illegality is excluded

[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 secrecy 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 "I are under suspicion", and even if the suspect is suspected of such suspicion, unless it is proved that the suspect divulges the company secrecy.

[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 content 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 have any limit to using the report as soon 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 a detention warrant for a suspect cannot be deemed as having fulfilled his/her duty of coverage necessary to secure the authenticity of the contents of the article, and in case where he/she had published a conclusive news article as if he/she had been found to have committed a crime by his/her own coverage despite the fact that he/she was suspected of committing a crime, the swiftness of the news report in daily newspapers cannot be deemed as having reached the extent that the posting of such article would be justified, even if 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, the court below found on January 11, 1991 that the non-party 2, the representative director of the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter the non-party 1 corporation), was accused of the plaintiff and the non-party 3, the director of the financial management division, by copying confidential documents, such as the business plan of the non-party 1 corporation, at the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office on January 11, 1991. The non-party 4, the director of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, summoned the above non-party 2 and the non-party 1 corporation, the director of the non-party 1 corporation, the director of the non-party 1 corporation, and the non-party 4, the director of the non-party 1 corporation, the director of the non-party 1 corporation, was released to the non-party 3 corporation's reputation and detained the plaintiff on the same day. The prosecutor's non-party 4, the prosecutor of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, who was aware of the above facts of the defendant 2's trade secrets.

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 of disclosure of the facts under investigation authority.

According to the records, the above non-party 2, summoned to the prosecutor's office at the time of announcement of the investigation results of this case, stated that the plaintiff was living in the scene of outflow of company secrets and did not directly witness the crime. The above non-party 3 stated that the plaintiff did not directly witness the crime. The plaintiff transferred a copy of 20 pages containing the organization outline, marketing strategies, etc. of the non-party 1's company's organization, and stated that the plaintiff knew of the company's business management method, 91th sales promotion plan, etc., and made oral statements that he knew of the company's secrecy. However, the plaintiff did not know about the contents of the documents as well as whether it falls under the company's confidential information and stated that "the documents were leaked to the non-party 1's basic marketing strategy." The above non-party 3 stated that the plaintiff was not guilty of the facts that the non-party 1 knew of the company's right to be prosecuted and the documents related to the crime of larceny, but the plaintiff did not know about the above facts."

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, such as the above provision, 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 constitutes the Plaintiff’s disclosure of confidential information. From this point of view, the Plaintiff’s prosecutor should have clearly stated such matters through reinforcement such as summons of documents or confidential information, which is the other party to whom the Plaintiff’s disclosure was made, and thus, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s disclosure of confidential information of the facts at the time of the crime could not be objectively and sufficiently determined based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s disclosure of confidential information of the facts at the time of the crime could not be deemed to have been made, as long as the prosecutor disclosed such information without such investigation, it cannot be said that there was any objective and sufficient evidence that the Plaintiff’s disclosure of the facts at the time of the crime was made public.

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 sub-paragraph (6) of the size of the company's length "in the 23th page of the daily newspaper No. 23 of the same month of the same month" and the sub-paragraph (30) of Korea's "EN 30 large head" as shown in attached Table 2 of the judgment of the court 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 in a way of reading ordinary articles with common attention and interest, by comprehensively taking into account not only the contents of the text of the article, but also the size and posting of the items and main text, length of the main text, 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 rapid 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 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, requested the non-party 4 to coverage, and the other reporters distributed and announced the records summary of the facts that the plaintiff and the non-party 3 were threatened with with the defendant while the other reporters were present, and based on such coverage materials, the above articles were prepared and reported as mentioned above. Even though the contents of the article cannot be viewed as requiring swiftness, the news source of the above articles are directly responsible for the investigation of this case, not private information, but private information, and it is hard for the plaintiff as the party concerned to verify the facts through news gathering, and it is not easy for the prosecutor to determine the facts through the prosecutor's direct coverage. However, if the articles were not prepared and published separately from the previous contents of the article, it cannot be viewed that the contents of the article were produced based on the evidence coverage and the investigation of this case.

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, the court below rejected the plaintiff's evidence on December 18, 1990, which found that the plaintiff gave 4 copies of the documents which were reproduced to the above so-called "market Blue 198" from the U.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, non-party 6, who is the reporter belonging to the social department of the defendant 3 newspaper company, read the article before being published in the daily newspaper of the defendant 2 newspaper company, read the copy of the warrant of detention against the plaintiff, and on the same day, prepare and report the article as shown in attached Tables 3 and 4 of the judgment of the court below on the daily newspaper of the defendant 3 newspaper company, and the fact-finding of the court below that the defendant 3 newspaper company did not submit a separate news

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 statement of a detention warrant against the plaintiff who served as the basis of each of the articles of this case or reading the articles of the daily newspaper of the 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 found to have committed a crime by his own direct coverage. As such, 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)