[2] The method of determining whether there was a reasonable ground to believe the truth in a case where a publicly alleged fact in the act of defamation of the media is related to a historical fact

[3] The case holding that tort liability is not established on the ground that a broadcaster's intentional act or negligence did not exist with respect to defamation of a person described behind the hinterland in the thaltha of the thaltha in the white-gu Kim Jong-gu case

[2] In determining whether a publicly alleged fact in relation to defamation in the media has a considerable reason to believe the truth, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the content of the publicly alleged fact, the basis for believing the truth as true, the certainty of the materials or methods of expression, etc. In particular, in the event that the publicly alleged fact is a historical fact, the freedom of inquiry or expression of historical facts should be protected, rather than the honor of the deceased or his/her bereaved family members, and it is not easy to confirm the truth because there are limitations to objective materials to verify the truth.

[3] The case holding that the tort liability is not established on the ground that the broadcasting company believed the content of the broadcasting to be true and there is no intention or negligence on the ground that the broadcasting company believed it to be true and there is no reasonable ground to believe it with respect to defamation of a person behind the hinterland in the thaltha of the crytha in the

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below held that the defendant's 50th anniversary of the above 50th anniversary of the above 1st anniversary of the above 3th anniversary of the fact that the defendant's statement was based on the above 1st anniversary of the above 50th anniversary of the above 1st anniversary of the fact that the defendant's 1st anniversary of the above 50th anniversary of the above 3th anniversary of the above 1st anniversary of the above 3th anniversary of the above 1st century, it was naturally recognized that the above 1stmal of the above 1stmar and the 2nd 2nd 50th 16th 2nd 16th 2nd 16th 10 of the above 1st 2nd 1st 196th 1st 19 of the above 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 194 of the above 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 19th 3th m.

2. A. In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below is deemed correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The allegation in the grounds of appeal on this point is without merit.

B. Even in a case where a media, such as a broadcast, impairs an individual’s reputation by pointing out a fact, if it is a matter of public interest and its purpose is solely for the public interest, if it is proved that the alleged fact is true, such act shall not be deemed unlawful. Even if there is no proof, if the actor believed it as true and there is no reasonable ground to believe it, it shall be deemed that there is no intention or negligence on the act. In determining whether there is a reasonable ground to believe the alleged fact as true, it shall be determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as the contents of the alleged fact, the grounds for believing it as true, the certainty of the material, and the method of expression, and in particular, if the publicly alleged fact is a historical fact, it shall be more protected than the honor of the deceased or his bereaved family members, and it shall be considered that it is not easy to confirm whether it is true and not there is any limit to objective material to confirm the truth.

According to the records, the above non-party 2 made a statement to the effect that the above non-party 1 gave an instruction to, or instigated the crypianum of the crime to himself over several times in 1992, and then reversed such statement. The statement by the related parties that the above non-party 1 was involved in the crypideide case is merely a conjecture based on the facts or circumstances revealed before and after the crypideide case. The fact that the above non-party 1 took part in the crypump case before and after the cryp broadcasting of this case had already been raised doubt that the above non-party 1 took part in the crypump case through various mass media. However, as recognized by the court below, if the above non-party 1 was classified as a rear crypianum case, and the above non-party 2's self-indicted 1 had no reason to crypump the above crypump case at the time of 192.

As to this point, the reasoning of the judgment below is different, but the conclusion that the tort is not constituted is justified, and the grounds of appeal are without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)