Seoul Jongno-gu internal waters 167 treatment complex buildings 505

O○ ○○

Law Firm Jeongse et al., Counsel for the defendant

Attorney Han-han et al.

Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu 1 National Assembly members' hall 304

Attorney Cho Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 are borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

L. L. 20% interest per annum.

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiff is an Internet newspaper company managing ○○ News (www. ohynes.com) and the defendant is a member of the National Assembly as a member of the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee.

B. On September 22, 2005, after the inspection of the National Assembly by the Daegu High Public Prosecutor's Office and the Daegu High Public Prosecutor's Office on September 22, 2005, the Defendant performed drinking in accordance with the " block juitius operated by ○○○." The space is narrow, service is bad, and the present ○○○ level was expressed.

( 2 ) 오○○뉴스의 기자인 이○○은 2005. 9. 23. 14 : 00경 열린우리당 대구시 당홍보 팀장 이재관으로부터 " 피고가 국정감사가 끝난 후 국회의원, 검사들과 어울려 술을 먹고 추태를 부렸다 " 는 제보를 받고, 같은 날 15 : 00경 매일신문, 연합뉴스 등 다른 언론매체의 기자들과 함께 현○○을 찾아가 인터뷰하였는데, 현○○으로부터 " 피고가 심한 욕설을 하여 모욕감을 느꼈다 " 는 취지의 말을 들었다 . ( 3 ) 오○○뉴스는 ① 2005. 9. 23. 17 : 30경 〈 주○○, 국감 뒤 ' 또 ' 폭탄주 추태 여종업원 " 태어나서 그런 욕 처음 " > 이라는 제목 아래 " 칵테일바 여사장 H씨 ( 현○○을 지칭함 ) 는 23일 오○○뉴스 기자와 만나 ' 주의원이 술을 마시는 도중 계속적으로 여성 성기를 비유한 욕설을 하면서 추태를 부렸다 ' 면서 ' 차마 말로 옮기지 못할 정도로 심한 성적 모욕감을 느꼈다 ' 고 주장했다 " 는 요지의 기사를, ② 2005. 9. 25. < 주○○ 의원 성적 언어폭력 사실 오○○뉴스 보도보다 더한 욕도 해라는 제목 아래 " 주의원이 술집 종업원들에게 성적 언어폭력을 행사했다는 또다른 술자리 참석자의 증언이 나왔다. 당시 문제의 현장을 직접 목격했던 열린우리당 의원 세명은 주의원의 언어 폭력이 사실이었으며, 그 중 한 의원은 ' 주의원이 오○○뉴스가 보도한 성적 언어 폭력보다 더 심한 욕도 했다 ' 고 말했다. … ( 중략 ) … 주의원은 술집 주인을 성희롱한 사람은 자신이 아니라 검찰청 J차장이라고 물귀신 작전으로 물고 들어가면서 교묘하게 현장 ' 알리바이 ' 를 주장했다 "는 요지의 기사를, ③ 2005. 9. 26. < 주○○ 의원의 폭언은 모두 사실, 여당의원들 해명은 80 % 가 거짓말 > 이라는 제목 아래 " 22일 밤 ' 술자리 추태 ' 사건이 벌어졌던 L칵테 일바 H사장 ( 여 ) 은 이번 사건의 발단이 됐던 주○○ 의원의 추태가 사실이라고 재확인 했다. … ( 중략 ) … H사장이 전화를 걸어와 밝힌 이같은 내용은 ' 진실 논란 ' 이 일었던 주○○ 의원의 ' 성적 폭언 ' 이 사실이었음을 재확인하는 한편 " 이라는 요지의 기사를 오이 ○뉴스의 화면에 각 게재하였다 ( 다음부터 ' 이 사건 술자리 보도 ' 라 한다 ) . ( 4 ) 한편, 대구여성회 등 시민단체들도 오○○뉴스의 보도를 접한 후 피고의 성적 폭언을 기정사실화하여 2005. 9. 24. " 피고는 성희롱에 대하여 사과하고 국회의원의 자리에서 물러나라 " 는 요지의 성명서를 발표하였다 .

C. The Defendant, such as the Defendant’s instant remarks, followed each of the above reports on ○○ News related to his own oral abuse, and then had no fact of 'sexually’ verbal abuse to ○○○○. However, ○○ News spreaded false facts that the Defendant had sexually abused, thereby impairing the Defendant’s reputation, and made the following remarks.

(1) The defendant, through the news report on September 23, 2005 and September 24, 2005, "O○ News" is a malicious news and a photograph that has been insulting against the defendant of ordinary times, and "O○ News" is a medium that insults and slanders the defendant of ordinary times, and "O○ News" is proved to prove that the truth is alive by tracking it up until the end of this opportunity as a German mushroom in our society.

(2) On September 25, 2005, the Defendant: (a) under Item (b) that “O○ News” was committed in front of the people, “O○○ News” in the name of the Defendant: (b) “O○ News was removed from a specific person and a specific group without any discrimination on the basis of false information not verified accurately after the publication, and caused a non-fluorous yellow media.

As a result, many unspecifieds have been sold freely, and even now now, malicious and non-discriminatory defamations have become a brupt that is no longer difficult to be present as they seem to be brupted. O○ News has opened in order to carry out terrorism against many people who are born in a specific force between them, and on the same line, it is the judgment of 23th day that ○○○○○○ News is also a slanderd and distorted article on the same line. Accordingly, O○ News has been committed in front of the people, namely, in other words, in order to prevent such malicious distortions twice again, published the name of the content “.......”

(3) The defendant around 00 on September 27, 2005: 11: 00, through a personal statement at the inspection site of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly, "the core of this case is "the core of this case is under the case by YO○ News". Without any confirmation, the defendant continuously reports personal slandering articles according to arbitrary intent and continuously reports the human rights of the people who are in the socially weak's position, and eventually destroys the foundation of our social democracy.

If fluench ○○ News is fluored with garbage, the nation's garbage will be left down. The author will be called '○○ News' in the future, and then 'O○ News' in the name of the President of the Republic of Korea, 'O○ News' in the name of the President of the Republic of Korea, and 'O○ News was confirmed, and 'O○ News was fluored despite confirmation. The victims will comply with and resist. Even after the news was confirmed, I operated the news (from the next day, all of the above statements and names are combined).

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute; evidence Nos. 1, 3-1 through 6, 4 and 6; the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The report of O○ News contains most of the facts and some different points from the truth, and it is irrelevant to the essence of the case, and there was a considerable reason to believe that the reporters are true. However, the Defendant asserted that O○ News reported false facts without any clear confirmation of the facts, and intentionally fabricated the case through the party’s clause, thereby impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation, and ② on the premise of such false facts, “O○○ News” is “Y○○ News,” “YO○ News,” “YOG,” “YOG,” “OOG,” “OOG,” “GG,” and “GGG,” and “GG,” thereby insulting the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obliged to compensate for mental damages caused to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the establishment of defamation

A. Whether defamation (1) is constituted against the Plaintiff’s chief executive officer (the Plaintiff’s chief executive officer’s assertion of defamation due to falsity)

During the Defendant’s remarks, it is reasonable to view that the phrase “O○ News reported false facts,” and intentionally fabricated the case, indicating specific facts that undermine the social evaluation of the Plaintiff.

(2) In the event of defamation by pointing out facts on the existence (A) of the grounds for denying illegality, if the purpose of defamation is solely for the public interest, it is proved that the alleged facts are true, or, in the absence of such proof, the actor believed it to be true and believed to be true, and to believe it.

In light of the fact that there is no reasonable ground to believe the truth, and whether there is a considerable reason to believe the timely contents are true, it should be determined in light of the following: (a) whether there was an adequate and sufficient investigation to verify the authenticity of the contents, by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the nature of the fact, the credibility of the intelligence sources, the easiness of confirmation of the fact, and the degree of the Plaintiff’s damage caused by a timely statement, etc.; and (b) whether the authenticity is supported by objective and reasonable data or evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da36395 delivered on May 8,

Since the media plays a significant role in criticism and surveillance over the state agencies or members of society, it is recognized that the media itself is also subject to high level criticism and surveillance. Considering the circumstances such as the scope of enjoying freedom of speech as a criticism against others, the scope of enjoying freedom of speech should be wide, and in addition, criticism against the media should be more widely permitted than criticism against public or public matters. (b) Public interest interests should be widely permitted.

Although the Defendant’s remarks in this case are deemed to have the public interest purpose of urging the Plaintiff to make a fair and true report, and even though the purpose of slandering the Plaintiff is to have different positions from the Plaintiff in light of the content, text, expression, etc. of the above remarks, the Defendant’s major purpose and motive is not different even if there is another private interest purpose or motive, as long as it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s major purpose and motive are in the public interest as above, it does not change even if there are other private interest purpose or motive.

First, we examine whether ○○ News made a false report or not (the Defendant, even though he did not have sexual verbal abuse, ○○ News made a false report or not). The issue is whether ○○ News made a false report or not, and the Defendant made a false report or a false report or not.

The Defendant posted a series of articles containing verbal abuse as seen earlier. According to the overall purport of Gap 2-2, 3, 4, 5, and Gap 3-2, Gap 6-2, and Eul 6-2, and Gap 6-2, the Defendant made an interview at the time of his interview on September 23, 2005, 1, "the ○○○ was suffering from sexual humiliation and sense of shame" and "the 2nd 0th 0th 5th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2th o-2.

According to the above facts, it is difficult to view that there is a considerable reason for reporters to believe the contents of the above article as true. (Although the report of this case contains most of the truth and some facts, it is nothing more than the nature of the case. However, it is difficult to view whether the report of this case constitutes a simple abusive language or a sexual abusive language is an error of a luxous expression in light of the ordinary people's emotional sentiments, it is difficult to regard it as an error of a luxous expression. The series of ○○ News reports of this case emphasizes that the plaintiff made a sexual abusive language beyond a simple abusive expression.)

Therefore, the part of '○○ News' during the instant speech is judged to be true, and thus there is no illegality.

Next, during the Defendant’s statement, the expression “○○ News intentionally fabricated the truth of the instant case, even though it was identified through the parties’ claim,” which is an exaggeration and inappropriate expression “A’s intentional manipulation.” However, according to the statement of evidence No. 7-1, ○○○’s news from September 25, 2005 to September 23, 2005, 80% of the news articles were false, and ○○○○○ was made a phone call against the news articles, and ○○○○○ was made a sexual abusive language, such as her sexual humiliation, and it was also deemed that “○○○○○○○○○○’s member did not have re-verification to the purport of this case,” the Defendant’s request for damages from the news articles, such as “the next day, ○○ News,” which should be widely recognized as unlawful by the Defendant’s sexual harassment report, and that the Defendant’s request was made to the effect that it should be considered as unlawful by the Defendant’s sexual harassment.”

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s note.

B. As to (1) the judgment criteria for the plaintiff's second master (as to the assertion of tort due to insulting expressions)

In principle, in a case of expression of opinion or comment, if it is judged as defamation caused by a factual fact that is based on a certain fact, the expression of opinion can be deemed as tort because it deviates from the limit of expression of opinion itself and can be deemed as tort if it is up to the personal attack caused by an insulting expression by an excessive expansion and exaggeration of the premise of the expression of opinion.

The term "O○ News", "O○ News", "O○ News", and "O○ News" in the Defendant's statement of this case constitutes an expression of opinion based on the premise that O○ News reported false facts and reported intentional incidents. Since individual facts on the premise of the above article are already publicly known by the Defendant and the authenticity or reasonableness thereof are separately determined, it shall be viewed as to whether the above part of opinion constitutes a separate tort.

The expression "O○ News" is not limited to criticism to the extent that there is a lack of the elements that the plaintiff should have been equipped with as a media organization, but it itself causes a serious harm to society, and it goes beyond the limit of expression of opinion. The plaintiff made an appearance to those who hear the defendant's statement that the plaintiff is merely a non-qualified press organization as a media organization or anti-social sexual ethics. Thus, this part of the statement is illegal since it is reasonable to view that the above part exceeds the limit of expression of opinion and is up to the malicious personal attack or insult against the plaintiff. (The defendant constantly spreads false facts that the defendant had sexual verbal abuse through the report of this case, and seriously damaged the defendant's reputation, since it was defensive in terms of the above defense, the defendant's act is not justified by the other party's unlawful act, and even if it is not against the other party's social rules, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's unlawful act was justified by the other party's unlawful act.

Now we can see.)

Therefore, the plaintiff 2 is justified.

C. Scope of damages liability

If so, the plaintiff suffered mental damage due to the above insulting expressions during the statement of this case.

Furthermore, with regard to the amount of consolation money, it is reasonable to determine the amount of compensation to be paid by the Defendant as KRW 5,00,000, as KRW 00,000, in consideration of various circumstances, such as the following: (a) the level of the expression, the degree of the expression, and the insulting expressions were made in public several times; (b) the Defendant’s social status and influence; and (c) the status and influence as the media of the Plaintiff; and (d) the Defendant’

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from November 26, 2005 to June 13, 2007, the day following the delivery day of the copy of the complaint of this case, as requested by the plaintiff, as the plaintiff, after the date of the statement of this case 5,00,000 won and the day after the day of the statement of this case, to the day after the delivery day of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum under the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of the full payment (the plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay from the day after the delivery day of the copy of complaint of this case to the day of the decision of this case, but it is reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendant's performance obligation of this case, so the above Special Act does not apply to the above period). The plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition,

Judges Neno Hong

Judge Lee Jong-hoon