1. As to the assertion of violation of jurisdiction, the lower court rejected the allegation that the instant lawsuit was unlawful on the grounds that it erred by misapprehending the jurisdiction.

In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on jurisdiction, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the assertion in the grounds of appeal on a request for a corrective statement, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendant had a duty to make a corrective report on part of the Defendants 2, 3, and 6.

In light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the requirements for establishing a claim for a corrective statement, standards for distinguishing opinions from factual facts, burden of proof, or by violating the rules of evidence, etc.

3. As to the ground of appeal on the claim for damages

A. In setting the limitation between the freedom of press and the protection of reputation, the standard of review shall vary depending on whether the victim whose reputation is damaged by the relevant expression is a public figure or a private figure, whether the expression concerns a public concern or a private matter, and whether the expression concerns a purely private matter. In the case of expression on a matter of public and social meaning, the restriction on the freedom of press should be mitigated, and in particular, whether the public official’s morality, integrity, or duties are properly performed should always be subject to citizen’s surveillance and criticism (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da63558, Sept. 2, 2003).

1. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court held the instant case.