2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Defendant B is a cultural reputation, and Defendant C is an editing book of online newspaper E, and Defendant D is a film distribution book.

B. The Defendants conspired with each other for the purpose of slandering the Plaintiff, contributed from F 23:0 to 23:50, to an integrated screen show HI produced by Internet Broadcasting E at the office located in the 8th floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government GG Building to an “HI” H,” and “A’s psychological condition is, after producing theme of “(J)” as two screen images, advertised the contents of the interview and interview in E on two occasions on the 22th and the 26th day of the same month, and spread through a lubb, and as of October 10, 2013, the frequency of the broadcast in question reaches 1,20 times.

C. The Defendants indicated, as indicated in the attached list, that the Plaintiff did not have any basis for maliciously slandering the broadcast, or made an insulting speech to the Plaintiff. The Defendants are obligated to pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff as damages.

2. Determination

A. (1) There is a question of setting a limitation to mediate the conflict between the freedom of press, freedom of expression and moral rights, and the protection of honor as a moral right. Even if certain expressions impair another person’s reputation, if such expressions solely for the public interest as an idea of public interest, if they are for the purpose of public interest, it is not illegal if they are true or if the actor has a reasonable ground to believe that they are true.

Here, the phrase “if the objective is solely for the public interest” means that the stated facts are related to the public interest when objectively viewed, and the offender also indicates the facts for the public interest. If the principal objective or motive of the offender is for the public interest, it is unreasonable even if there is an incidental other private interest purpose or motive.

this is, and this is,.