The building of the Jung-gu Seoul Central Library 88 and the Central Library (Slified Dong)

Representative Director Kim Su-ro, Red-ro

Law Firm Rate, Attorney Park Jong-soo

Attorney Jeon Byung-hoon

Korea Communications Commission

Law Firm Han-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

2. The Defendant’s order to take disciplinary measures against the Plaintiff on August 26, 2014 is revoked.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each party.

4. The disposition described in paragraph 2 shall cease to be in force until the judgment of the appellate court of this case is rendered.

A. On April 16, 2014, there was an accident of sinking at the sea near Jindo-do near the Sewol ferry (hereinafter referred to as "the Sewol ferry") in which the passengers have been aboard, and the passengers have been aboard, in Jeju-do.

B. On April 18, 2014: (a) the Plaintiff, a broadcasting business entity, reported the television broadcast program (hereinafter “the instant program”) called “JTBC NEWS 9”)” that broadcast from 00 to 22:0,00, which broadcasted. The content of the broadcast also includes the contents of the instant program’s interview (hereinafter “the instant interview”) in relation to the rescue of the missing person in the ○○ and the Sewol ferry accident, who is a rescue expert in the Switzerland. However, the details of the broadcast include the contents of the instant program as indicated in “Attachment 9”.

C. On August 7, 2014, the Korea Communications Standards Commission broadcasted the following unclear contents of the interview (hereinafter referred to as “the contents of the interview at issue”) as a fact and caused viewers to confuse the viewers, and made a request for a disciplinary measure against the Defendant pursuant to Article 14 of the Broadcasting Deliberation Regulations (hereinafter referred to as “Deliberation Regulations”) and Article 24-2(2) of the former Regulations on the Review of Communications (amended by Rule 109 of the Korea Communications Standards Commission, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter referred to as “former Review Regulations”), on the ground that the Korea Communications Commission violated the foregoing provision, made a decision on “the disciplinary measure against the persons related to the broadcast program at issue” against the Defendant on the ground that the Korea Communications Commission made a request for a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on May 28, 2014 pursuant to Article 25(1) and (3) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Korea Communications Commission.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

D. On August 26, 2014, upon receipt of a request to take a disciplinary measure by the Korea Communications Commission, the Defendant issued a disposition to order the Plaintiff to take a disciplinary measure against the person related to the relevant broadcast program as requested by the Korea Communications Commission pursuant to Article 25 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Korea Communications Commission and Article 100 of the Broadcasting Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disciplinary measure order”), and (ii) the Plaintiff issued a disposition that the Plaintiff shall notify the Defendant of the content of the “high broadcast” only once before the broadcast of the relevant broadcast program (hereinafter referred to as the “instant order”) within seven days from the date on which the Defendant was notified of the disciplinary measure pursuant to Article 100(4) of the Broadcasting Act.

E. On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Defendant regarding each of the above dispositions, but the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on October 23, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, Gap evidence No. 6-1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the part concerning an order to notify broadcasting among the instant lawsuits

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the part concerning the order to notify broadcasting among the instant lawsuits.

Article 100 of the Broadcasting Act provides that if a broadcasting business operator, etc. violates deliberation regulations, etc. under paragraph (1), the Defendant may order the relevant broadcasting business operator, etc. to take certain sanctions, and the broadcasting business operator, etc. who received an order to take sanctions under paragraph (4) of the same Article shall broadcast without delay the full text of the Defendant’s decision regarding such order. Therefore, a broadcasting business operator, etc., who received an order to take sanctions from the Defendant, as a matter of course, bears the duty of notifying and broadcasting the relevant sanction order, and even if the Defendant issued a notice broadcasting order along with the sanction order, it is merely the meaning of confirming the obligation of notifying the broadcasting business operator, etc.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 6-1 and 2, the Defendant, while simultaneously providing the Plaintiff with the instant sanction order and the instant notice broadcasting order, was merely guiding the instant sanction order pursuant to the Broadcasting Act, the Administrative Appeals Act, and the Administrative Litigation Act, and did not provide any guidance on the instant notice broadcasting order. Furthermore, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware that the order was not subject to objection because it did not directly affect the Plaintiff’s legal status, such as the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations, at the time of issuing the instant notice broadcasting order.

Therefore, the instant broadcast order is merely a non-power factual act with a mere recommended effect and does not constitute an administrative disposition subject to a revocation lawsuit. As such, the part concerning the broadcast order in the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it is a lawsuit filed against an act, not a disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du43974, Mar. 12, 2015).

3. Whether the instant disciplinary measure order is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The contents of the interview at issue are merely that ○○○○, a rescue expert dedicated to the instant program, presented his opinion. Moreover, the fact that Daice level could enhance efficiency by increasing working hours during the number of times was verified in many domestic and foreign cases. If so, it cannot be evaluated that the Plaintiff broadcasted an ambiguous content in the instant program as a fact. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not violate Article 14 of the Review Regulations and Article 24-2(2) of the former Review Regulations.

(b) Relevant statutes;

The attached Form shall be as listed in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Interpretation of relevant statutes

According to Article 100(1)3 of the Broadcasting Act, the defendant may order a disciplinary action against a person related to the relevant broadcasting program if the broadcasting business operator makes a broadcast in violation of the Review Regulations. In addition, Article 14 of the Regulations provides that "broadcasting shall deal with the broadcast in an accurate and objective manner, and it shall not cause viewers to confuse by broadcasting as it is unclear facts." Article 24-2(2) of the former Review Regulations provides that "When the broadcasting business operator directly gathers the statistics of damage caused by disasters, etc., the list of casualties and missing persons, or the restoration status of the missing persons, etc., and it shall not cause viewers to confuse by broadcasting as unclear information." Accordingly, the defendant may order the broadcasting business operator to take disciplinary action against the relevant broadcasting business operator pursuant to Article 100(1)3 of the Broadcasting Act.

However, in order for a broadcasting business operator to cause confusion to viewers by transmitting unclear contents and information as to disasters, etc., it should be premised on the fact that the contents and information broadcasted by the broadcasting business operator is not true. This is because the media has a mission to serve as a citizen's right by reporting the truth, and there is no reason or ground to re-inform the press with respect to the act that reported the truth, and in particular, if the media reports true facts with respect to the public interest, it is the basic position of the legal system (see, e.g., Article 310 of the Criminal Act, Article 5 (2) 2 of the Press Arbitration and Damages, etc. Act, and Article 14 of the former Review Regulations and Article 24-2 (2) of the former Review Regulations, etc.). In addition, in order to recognize that the broadcasting business operator violated the above Article 10 of the Broadcasting Act and Article 24-2 (2) of the former Review Regulations, it is not sufficient for the broadcasting business operator to acknowledge that the broadcast business operator failed to meet the requirements of Article 20 of the Broadcasting Act.

Therefore, in order for the instant sanctions order to be deemed lawful, the Defendant, as the disposition authority, must prove that the instant sanctions order satisfies the requirements under the relevant laws and regulations as seen earlier, that is, the Plaintiff’s interview content that was the issue of the broadcast in the instant program is not true.

2) Confirmation of the part of the interview in question as a ground for sanctions.

According to the review in the " Inspector of Disposition", the contents of the interview at issue are as follows: ① Cice level is a technology that can be continuously worked for 20 hours, regardless of the speed, and ② if a rescue work is conducted for 20 consecutive hours by inserting a Dice level at the scene of the Sewol ferry accident, it can be finished within 2, 30 days, and the search for the cargo partitions of the Sewol 3, 4th class, and ③ even in the military (military) the existence of such a Dice level is known, but it can be summarized that the Dice level cannot be put in the rescue work system in which the current Mice level is led.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff violated Article 14 of the Review Regulations and Article 24-2 (2) of the former Review Regulations, since the part corresponding to the above subparagraphs (i) and (ii) is an unclear content and information as it constitutes a fact and makes viewers confused. Therefore, in order to accept the defendant's above assertion, it should be proved that the above part (i) and (ii) are not true as seen earlier.

3) Whether the reason for the instant sanctions is not true

① First of all, I will examine whether the portion of the technology that can be continuously worked for 20 hours, regardless of the speed, is not true (hereinafter referred to as the "part 1").

From the following circumstances revealed from the contents of the interview at issue, i.e., the phrase "a technology that can be continuously worked for 20 hours, regardless of the speed," refers to a word from the first question that the operator of the program at issue took place without any premise or background, and the contents of the interview at issue, including the fact that the general explanation of the origin or advantages of the Gagae, among the contents of the interview at issue, accounts for a considerable amount of time, and in light of the text and context of the interview at issue, before and after the situation, it is understood that the meaning of delivery at issue is impossible to carry out continuous work for 20 hours, regardless of the speed, when using the gae in general (marine phenomena). Therefore, in order to recognize this as not true, even if the gae is used at general maritime conditions, it should be proved that it is difficult to provide continuous work for 20 hours, regardless of the speed.

However, considering that Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 through 7 submitted by the defendant to prove this, are all the articles of other media companies, and the contents contained therein are most of the opinions of other experts who have not been verified objectivity, it is difficult to recognize that the above points have been proved. Moreover, after the interview of this case, it is difficult to conclude that the above facts are impossible to recognize that the above part of the evidence was conducted for about 20 minutes by inserting a ice level on the Sewol ferry site and inserting a ice level on April 30, 2014. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25348, May 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 25740, May 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 25680, May 1, 2014>

Next, this paper examines whether there is any inconsistency in the search of the Sewol ferry No. 3 and the fourth cargo partitions within 20 days if the Sewol ferry ice level was put in and engaged in rescue operations continuously for 20 hours (hereinafter referred to as "the second part").

As seen earlier, this part is interpreted to mean that the number of parts in general maritime conditions can be engaged in continuous work for 20 hours. (2) In light of the language and text of the interview contents, including ① the fact that, on the premise of this part, a multi-ice level is being put in at the scene of the Sewol ferry accident and taking the form of judgment made under the assumption that continuous rescue work for 20 hours is carried out for 20 hours, and the situation before and after, this part is understood to be that, as in general maritime conditions, the number of parts to be delivered can be done within 20 hours if a multi-ice level is put in at the scene of the Sewol ferry accident and a continuous rescue work is carried out for 20 hours. Therefore, in order to recognize this as impossible, it is necessary to prove that the size of the multi-ice level can be within 30 hours and 30 days off the Sewol ferry, and that the cargo level should be proven to be within 20 hours off the Sewol ferry.

However, it is difficult to conclude that the above points have been proven on the ground of the following reasons: (a) ○○ put a ice level into the scene of the Sewol ferry accident for about 20 minutes or about 2 hours; and (b) the entries in the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3-1 through 7 of the evidence Nos. 2-2; and (c) there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, it is difficult to see that the part above is not true.

4) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, it is difficult to recognize that the reason for the instant sanctions is not true, and therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have violated Article 14 of the Review Regulations and Article 24-2(2) of the former Review Regulations. Therefore, the instant sanctions order, premised on the Plaintiff’s violation of each of the above provisions, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

4. Suspension of execution of the instant disciplinary measure order

According to the records of this case, it is recognized that there is an urgent need to prevent any damage difficult to recover to the plaintiff due to the instant sanction order, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the suspension of effect may have a significant impact on public welfare, and thus, the validity of the instant sanction order shall be suspended ex officio until the appellate judgment of this case is rendered.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, since the part concerning the order to notify broadcasting among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful, it is dismissed. The plaintiff's remaining claims except the above dismissed part are justified, and it is so decided as per the text of this case.

Judges Kim Yong-ho

Judges Seo-sung

【Implementers】

I will see the series of structural operations that have been reported so far. ○○○○○ Ampha Technology Corporation (18 days) which is a professional in the structure and the life style of the vessel so far, dynasty directly dynasty and dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty. dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty.

[○]

N. N., I will do so.

【Implementers】

Dow Dow Dow Dow Dow Dow Dow Dow Dow Dow Dow Dow Dow Dow Dow Dow Dow sat Dow Dow Dow Dow Dow Dow Do ??

【EO】

At this time, the most continuous operation has an influence on the future. So, once you see and rhhy the eye, we need to see. However, it is necessary to set up an elevator with a depth of up to 20 meters up to 30 meters from the entrance attached to the hull. I think that the elevator is installed at a kind of water speed, and move after entering and moving from the elevator. I can move the elevator from the entrance to the entrance from the entrance to the entrance from the entrance to the entrance. In addition, it is possible to move the 2,3 meters from the elevator to the entrance.

【Implementers】

Dor. Dor. Dor.

【EO】

To do so, it is necessary to continuously search. On the other hand, there is no influence of algae when entering the hull.

However, this technology has been described.

【EO】

(w)in the case of the PSI.

【Implementers】

Whether it is damp? and whether it is actually used?

【EO】

활용이 됐죠 .

【Implementers】

When use is done? at any time?

【EO】

At any time, the sinking accident was 70m in 70m, and the depth was deep, and the proposal was proposed in 2000, and the idea was basic in the age of the lease.

【Implementers】

In such cases, 70 meters shall not be more than 70 meters.

【EO】

We need to see, however, that the 70m, 100m of 10m of ice, and that the ice was used in Korea. If you go to see, the so-called "water pressure" is sent to the water speed, and therefore, the air space is open to Belgium if you enter the Belgium because the so-called "water pressure" can be sent to the water speed. So, if we can see the time it appears to be very cold and frozen, it can be used as any escape place that can avoid the ice.

【Implementers】

Therefore, whether the proposal can be seen as having been done?

【EO】

The fact that the proposal currently has low equipment and has such technology and has worked for up to 100 meters in depth is known to the Royna, any of the various different ices. The existence of the lowest exists.

【Implementers】

There is still a need to adopt such a statement?

[○]

However, the PPPP.

【Implementers】

그래서 그 말씀을 하신 것이 크게 얘기가 돌았던 것 같은데 . 그건 당국에서도 조금 적극적으로 생각해 봤으면 좋겠습니다 . 워낙 지금 유속도 빠르고 마스크가 벗겨질 정도로 유속이 빠르다니 까요 . 그리고 작업시간이 워낙 짧기 때문에 잠깐잠깐밖에 못 들어가는 상황 아니겠습니까 ? 그 런데 이게 실제로 검증이 된 것이라면 적극적으로 고려해 봐야 될 문제가 아닌가 생각을 하고 요 . 일단은 알겠습니다 . 그런데 공기주입 지점 , 저희가 어제 이○○ 대표하고 잠깐 얘기를 나눴 습니다마는 지금 공기주입 지점은 정확하게 다 찾아들어간 것이라고 판단을 하시는지요 ?

【EO】

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea, in the form, .. There is still a lot of understanding that the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea has a lot of interests.

【Implementers】

What kind of dampen?

【EO】

Gayer to do an interview? The steering house took place at a place falling under the steering house. The steering house . . . . Dow Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw Ha? Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw Ha? Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw w we w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w

【Implementers】

Mabalk Doz.?

【EO】

The work progress should not be made with too much consciousness of bag lines, barges, so that we can do so, and therefore we will do this faging in the broadcast, so that it is too unnecessary to do so.

【Implementers】

We need not, however, that the breath may not have been dnick?

【EO】

계속 비췄잖아요 . 작업을 하러 들어갔다고 그러면서 자료화면이 이렇게 비췄을 때 제가 이런 것은 어느 시점이었겠지만 바지선이 떠 있는 걸 못 봤어요 .

【Implementers】

Since the screen may not be a real-time screen, it can be deemed accurate. Since the air injection point is a steering house now back, it is a part of the last bottom, and if the air be connected to other areas by the ebben from the ebben, it is possible to form an ebben ticket by spreading the air to the other ebening area?

【EO】

There is no possibility. It is a driver's room to operate the boat as it is. There is a door in both sides. It is so that the air has been installed on the roof of the building steering house called Ebench, and it is dried up to a certain extent, and the next gate will be cut off on the floor, if the air is not placed on the gun. If the air is not placed on the gun, it is under the bottom and under the bottom of the stairs connected under the bottom of the canter.

【Implementers】

I would know. If so, I would like to think that, at the time I think this representative thickness, the injecting air would have been the most appropriate part?

【EO】

The air injection is once it is considered necessary to conduct an investigation regardless of whether it is a restaurant or at the same time. When there is a possibility that a person lives. It now does not know why it is why it is why it is, and at the same time, it was installed in front of the fact that it is a margin, and there is no idea that it does not have any force, such as any wind line indicating that it is a exhauster, and that it does not have any effect on the public.

【Implementers】

At the present moment, the position of the piracy is that it has been installed with low power bags so that it can no longer sit because it can be dried down on the bottom of the floor.

【EO】

However, it is necessary to see all the effects.

【Implementers】

Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do ?

【EO】

It is very low, therefore, I answer to what will we continue to do so.

【Implementers】

There is no superior infinite sainnel, even at the same time infinite infinite?

【EO】

Although there is no superior, if the flive work is carried out simultaneously, it is necessary to do so if the continuous work using the labelling system is carried out at a time, however, in the present situation, the flive width is not more than 20 meters, and it is 22 meters. Therefore, it is 20 meters. The flive work of entering one entrance and leaving the same flive, and making an investigation into the 4,5 meters above each side of the flive and the flive work, for example, if a victim is discovered, the flive work that was carried out as of the time when the flive work was carried out, how the flive work was carried out, how the flive work was carried out, how the flive work was carried out, and how the flive work was carried out, and how the 30th of the flive and flive work was carried out [the 30th of the flive, if the 20th of the flive work.

I know, I would like to see. In other words, I would like to see the same device with the equipment?

【EO】

The above sentence is required to be followed by the people who will be responsible for piracy in the structure operation system at the present moment. It is essential for us to make it impossible for us to feel. In addition, in order to do this work, it is clearly preceding the overall process of search, rescue, salvage, and mooring of vessels, for example, a civilian who is the whole direction for rescue work, even though it is a problem, it is necessary for us to take the overall direction of search, rescue, salvage, and mooring of vessels, and to take the whole direction for rescue work. Accordingly, it is necessary for us to assist us to have human resources on the side, or to assist us with any equipment in search, rescue, surrounding safety, and to have a substantial ability to carry out a spunchnive engine without being able to do so, regardless of what kind of safety has been supported.

【Implementers】

I would like to know. It would not be easy as such. I would like to make the proposal understanding. I would like to attempt to enter the hull at 3 p.m. at the o.m. level. However, I would like to enter and leave the freight space, and the life line was cut down as soon as it was the freight space. I would like to say that there is no mold that it was an extremely dangerous situation. Whether this situation would actually occur?

【EO】

The guidelines, life lines, and so on. Facts are this friering, such as the Guideline, excursion ship/ferry, leader, and search line, regardless of whether it is a life line so expressed. So, it is necessary to cut off a certain distance in the absence of a view. So, the fact that it can be cut off is being installed in another easily, so it is not a case.

【Implementers】

I know you.

Relevant statutes

▣ 방송법

Article 33 (Deliberation Rules)

(1) The Korea Communications Standards Commission shall deliberate on the impartiality and public nature of broadcasts.

(hereinafter referred to as "Review Regulations") shall be enacted and publicly announced.

Article 100 (Disciplinary Measures, etc.)

(1) The Korea Communications Commission shall deliberate on Article 33 by a CATV relay broadcasting business operator or electric sign board broadcasting business operator.

Penalty surcharges not exceeding 50 million won in cases of violations of the regulations and the regulations on the announcement of sponsors under Article 74 (2).

may be imposed or any of the following sanctions may be ordered:

The same shall also apply to the case where it is deemed necessary to impose the sanctions under this subsection: Provided, That the Korea Communications Standards Commission shall apply thereto.

(1) If a minor offense, such as the Review Regulations, does not constitute an order to take a disciplinary measure;

A recommendation to the person responsible for or related to the relevant broadcast program or the relevant broadcast advertisement;

or may present its opinion.

3. Disciplinary actions against a person in charge of broadcast programming or a person related to the relevant broadcast advertisement;

(4) A CATV relay broadcasting business operator and an electric sign board broadcasting business operator shall impose penalty under paragraphs (1) and (3).

or, upon receipt of a sanction order, a full text of the decision made by the Korea Communications Commission with respect thereto without delay.

shall transmit the order of a measure, and the order of a measure shall be implemented within seven days from the date of receipt of the order, and the result of the implementation shall be

Information to the Communications Commission shall be reported.

(6) A person dissatisfied with a disciplinary measure under paragraphs (1) and (3) shall be subject to the relevant disciplinary measure.

A request for review may be filed with the Korea Communications Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of an order.

▣ 방송통신위원회의 설치 및 운영에 관한 법률

Article 25 (Sanctions, etc.)

(1) When the Korea Communications Standards Commission deems that contents of broadcasting or information and communications violate deliberation provisions under Article 24.

any of the following sanctions, etc. may be established:

1. Recommendation on disciplinary measures or presentation of opinions under Article 100 (1) of the Broadcasting Act;

(3) When the Korea Communications Standards Commission determines sanctions under paragraph (1), it shall take the disposition of sanctions without delay to the Commission.

shall be required to make a request.

▣ 방송심의에 관한 규정

Article 14 ( Objectivity)

A broadcast shall deal with the facts accurately and objectively, and shall not cause viewers to confuse by transmitting unclear matters as fact.

▣ 구 방송심의에 관한 규정 ( 2014 . 12 . 30 . 방송통신심의위원회 규칙 제109호로 개정되기 전의 것 ) 제24조의2 ( 재난등에 대한 정확한 정보제공 )

(2) Statistics of damage caused by disasters, etc., information on the list of casualties, missing persons, or restoration status, etc. shall be in charge of disasters, etc.

agency shall reflect the contents of the publication of the head of the agency, and when the business entity directly coverage and broadcasts the business entity;

shall not cause viewers to confuse by broadcasting unclear information as a fact.