2. The Defendant Culture Broadcasting Co., Ltd. continues to indicate the title of the correction report on the investigation team of the Chungcheong District Police Agency, which investigated the case of women's trade of Mamakao on the upper screen from the first head of the 2580's cultural broadcasting which was first broadcasted after the judgment of this case was final and conclusive (the size of this letter is the same as that of 2580's letter which is ordinarily 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 2580'

3. The plaintiffs' respective remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 are assessed against the Defendants, 1/5 are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

5. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

2. The Defendant Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd.: (a) broadcast broadcast on television between Sundays 21:00 to Sundays 22:00, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this judgment, through a television broadcast between Sundays 21:0 and Sundays 22:00; and (b) broadcast one time with four of them as independent presses, respectively, and a broadcast of each press point being 30 seconds.

On March 25, 2001, this broadcast station reported the investigation of the case regarding the bonds of the Hamak-ro Police Agency through the regular program called 'Mamak-ro 2580'. And the content of the report was that the criminal offenders belonging to the Hamo-dong Police Agency operated the case to defend the corporate violence suspects by manipulating the case, and rather sexual assault or assault the victims. However, the above report was based on the statement of only the women who argued that all the victims were victims. It was revealed that the criminal offenders belonging to the Hamo-dong Police Agency did not manipulate the case or inflict damage on the relevant witnesses. Accordingly, this broadcast company received from the court the above distorted report that infringed on the personal rights and reputation of the Hamo-dong Police Agency and the criminal defendant belonging to the Hamo-dong Police Agency."

The following facts are: Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 11-5 (the same shall apply to Eul evidence 10), Eul evidence 12-7 (the same shall apply to Eul evidence 14-14, Eul evidence 9), Gap evidence 14-2, 8 (the same shall apply to Eul evidence 11), 10 (the same shall apply to Eul evidence 12), 11, 12 (the same shall apply to Eul evidence 27), 39 (the same shall apply to Eul evidence 16), 40 (the same as Eul evidence 17), 45 (the same as Eul evidence 18), 40 (the same as Eul evidence 19), 51-7 (the same as Eul evidence 14, 52, 53-1, 10-4, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 4-4, 3-1, 4-1, 4-1, and 4-1, and 4-1, respectively.

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiffs are police officers belonging to the Chungcheong Provincial Police Agency, the Police Agency, and the Defendant Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Cultural Broadcasting”) that investigated the suspicion of Nonparty 1’s sexual traffic, etc. and Nonparty 2’s sexual intercourse, etc., which are the bond company, and they are companies engaging in the broadcasting business, etc., and Defendant Oraey is 2580 (hereinafter referred to as “the program of this case”) of Defendant Cultural Broadcasting, which was broadcasted between March 25, 2001 and around 22:30 (hereinafter referred to as “the program of this case”).

B. The investigation process of the case of Nonparty 1’s sexual traffic, etc. and Nonparty 2’s sexual intercourse, etc.

(1) The non-party 3 was a prompt telephone call from a female guest who received a call from a female guest in the Cheongju-si, and was engaged in the leap business. On January 200, the non-party 1, who borrowed 14,000,000 won from the non-party 1 among the police officers on a high interest rate of interest and repaid the money, making it difficult for the police officer to pay the money due to the traffic accident, he was unable to do so. The non-party 3 was able to receive a large amount of money from Maka-ro and Maka-si to hear the claim that he may receive a large amount of money from Maka-si and leave the Maka-si. < Amended by Act No. 6248, Apr. 200>

The non-party 1 mobilized organized violence ships that the non-party 3 knew of the fact that he did not pay his own money and set off the non-party 3 as Seoul Ga. The non-party 2 introduced the non-party 2 to the non-party 3, and received 22,400,000 won from the leapju and substituted the non-party 3 for the repayment of his debt to the non-party 1.

(2) Meanwhile, around 199, Nonparty 2 lent 3,00,000 won to Nonparty 3 on several occasions after he lent her interest rate to Nonparty 3. Nonparty 3 introduced Nonparty 3 to her so as to receive the loan, and around June 200, Nonparty 2 asked Nonparty 3 to move her to another place due to Nonparty 1’s coercion. Nonparty 3 demanded that she pay her money from 0,000,000 won to 10,000,000 won from 20,000,000 won to 30,000,000 won to 30,000,00 won to 30,000,00 won to 30,000,000 won to 30,000,000 won to 30,000,000 won to 30,000,000 won to 30,000,000 won to 3,00.

(3) After Nonparty 3 returned from Makao, Nonparty 2 received demand by Nonparty 2 due to the increase in the damages against Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3 reported Nonparty 2 to the Cheongju-dong Police Station on September 16, 200, stating that “ Nonparty 2 lent his bonds to Nonparty 2 at Maka-dong Police Station and had Nonparty 2 work for Makao’s leap business in order to have the bonds repaid to himself.”

(4) On the other hand, the plaintiffs belonging to the Chungcheong Police Agency No. 1 were working for the telephone call establishment on behalf of the non-party 1. The non-party 2 was asked for the non-party 3 to use the high rate of debt to the non-party 1, and the non-party 3 was asked for the payment of debt to the non-party 1 at the 2nd police agency's own discretion to the non-party 3 with the intention to use it as a method different from the pre-determined account even though the non-party 1 fully repaid his debt to the non-party 1. The non-party 2 was asked for the non-party 3 to use it as a means to make the non-party 3 to use it to pay money to the non-party 1 at the 0nd police agency's own discretion and to use it as a means to make the non-party 3 to use it for the non-party 1 at the 0th police agency's own discretion. At that time, the plaintiff 3 was introduced to the non-party 3rd Police Police Agency.

(5) Based on the above statement made by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were bound by the non-party 1, the non-party 4, and the non-party 5, who is the close part of the non-party 3, were the non-party 3 for the purpose of causing confusion to the investigation by the plaintiffs against the non-party 1. The non-party 1 actually left the non-party 3 to the non-party 3, despite the fact that the non-party 2 was sold to the non-party 3 on or around April 200, the non-party 3 was sold to the former Non-party 3 to the former Non-party 3, and the non-party 2 made the statement to the Seoul Special Police Agency that the non-party 3 made the statement to the non-party 3 to the non-party 1, who was operated by the non-party 3 to the non-party 3's promise to the non-party 2 and the non-party 3's statement to the non-party 50-party 2.

(6) While investigating the case of Nonparty 2, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency received a copy of Nonparty 3’s statement on September 16, 200 from the Cheongju Police Station, which Nonparty 3 stated in the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, and determined that it is necessary to further investigate the authenticity of Nonparty 3’s statement on September 23, 200, as Nonparty 3 stated in the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, on September 23, 200, Nonparty 3 transferred the case of Nonparty 1’s female trading, etc. to the Chungcheong Police Agency.

(7) The plaintiffs requested non-party 3 to attend several times to make a reinforcement investigation into the case against the non-party 2, which was referred by the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency. However, the non-party 3 refused to comply with the request and present himself at the Cheongbuk District Police Station Investigation Team on November 20, 200. The plaintiff Shin Jae-chul made a contradictory statement about the circumstances that the non-party 3 had worked at the former leap establishment as above, and conducted a physical search to confirm whether the recording is possible prior to the investigation.

The non-party 3, upon being investigated, stated that "the non-party 2 was in excess of the arms of Jeonju and Macaro," and the non-party 3 reversed the statement that "the non-party 3 was contradictory to the non-party 3's statements made on September 16, 200 and the statements made on September 23, 200," and that "the non-party 2 was the non-party 1, not the non-party 2, and the non-party 2 was in excess of the arm's length price and the Macar."

(8) Nonparty 3, at the trial of the case, ordered Nonparty 4, etc. against Nonparty 1 to make a favorable statement from Nonparty 1. Nonparty 2 testified to the effect that Nonparty 1 would first sell it on December 12, 2001 to March 20, 201 on the date of the trial of the case, such as sexual traffic against Nonparty 1 on three occasions from December 12, 2001 to March 20, Nonparty 3 again reversed Nonparty 2’s statement on November 20, 200 at the police agency of Chungcheongnam-do, the police agency of the Republic of Korea, and made a false statement to the effect that Nonparty 1 was forced by Nonparty 2 to sell it as the former. Nonparty 2 did not sell it as the former, but did not sell it to Nonparty 2 on his own. Nonparty 2 testified to the purport that he was in excess of his own will first sell it.”

C. Planning, production, and broadcast details of the instant program

(1) On January 2001, the Defendants: (a) from Nonparty 3 in the middle of Nonparty 2001, and (b) from Nonparty 2, the Defendants: (c) obtained a written confirmation of the fact that “Iss Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has Has

(2) The Defendants decided to adopt the aforementioned information upon the result of the conference of 2580 conference. Accordingly, the Defendants covered the coverage files with Nonparty 3 and Mar. 21, 2001 as to whether Defendant Orala, who is the ID of 2580, was accompanied by Nonparty 3 and Mar. 21, 2001, and received Nonparty 3 from Nonparty 2.

(3) On March 21, 2001, Defendant 1 revealed that, based on this coverage, Nonparty 2 collected the Plaintiffs as the investigation by the Chungcheong Provincial Police Agency on March 21, 2001. At the time of coverage, the Plaintiffs stated that, “Non-Party 1’s bond business operator transferred Non-Party 3 to her former leapju and had Non-Party 2 file a false complaint with the Cheong Dong-dong Police Agency in order to reverse this fact with Nonparty 2, who is the other bond business operator.” While Nonparty 3 did not have any credibility since Non-Party 3 did not reverse his statement to the former leapju on several occasions, the Plaintiffs did not have any further asserted that Non-Party 3 did not have any further relation to the case of his leapju in which Non-Party 3 was forced to take part in his leapju-dong police station’s oral investigation. However, the Plaintiffs did not have any further asserted that Non-Party 2 was forced to take part in the case of his leap.

However, Defendant Ora had produced the instant program under the title of “Macaro” without any further examination as to the authenticity of the Plaintiffs’ above statements, and Defendant Ora had broadcast the program through “the news gathering file,” which is a news gathering file, between March 25, 2001 and 22:30.

D. Main contents of the instant program

The main contents of the instant program are summarized as follows (the entire content is as shown in the attached Form 'Macaro').

(1) The introduction portion: Sponse bonds are sold to lele or leap business, such as celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal celebal and lebal lebal lebal. These people were tangled by themselves, but they were ververd with the corporate bond manager and the corporate bonds manager involved, but they were dead, and police did not have any way.

(2) The portion of a macario’s shooting of macario: A bond company Nonparty 2’s loan out of Nonparty 2 and the amount of the loan out of macario increased by Nonparty 3 went to the domestic macario business by Nonparty 2, who was transferred to the Korean Macario’s Korean Bracker, and caused the macario’s leap at the macario’s leap business.

(3) The plaintiffs' investigation situation and the interview interview site of the plaintiffs Shin-chul: The non-party 3 who returned to Korea from Makao reported the non-party 2 to the Chungcheong Police Agency for the suspicion of prostitution and assault (the "Jongbuk Police Agency's Macdong Investigation Team"). The Chungcheong Police, upon the request of the non-party 2, sent the non-party 3 in advance at the same coffee shop before investigating the case. The non-party 3, the victim, conducted the search of body close to sexual indecent act, and conducted the investigation into the non-party 3 with the non-party 3 in an unfaithful attitude, such as sending Kim Madon to the office. Thus, the non-party 3, who is unable to believe the Chungcheong Police, requested the Seoul Police Agency to investigate the case again, and the Seoul Regional Police Agency reported the case to the non-party 2 for the reason that the case was not under jurisdiction, and the non-party 2 was still transferred to the Chungcheong Police Agency.

(4) The coverage portion against Nonparty 2: Nonparty 2 denied the fact that Nonparty 3 arranged for a prostitution and Macaro to Nonparty 3, but the right holder of Pyeongtaek-si accepted Nonparty 2 to offer money with the introduction of Nonparty 3.

(5)The end of this part: Sheet the old bonds are purchased and sold to a foreign country, and the non-party 3 is consistent with the last investigation into the police scarbing the door in a false manner, and they are made up of a re-investigation and they should cease to connect the old bonds.

E. The circumstances after the broadcast of the instant program

(1) The non-party 3 was indicted with the Cheongju District Court on the charge of perjury in the criminal case against the non-party 2 and the non-party 1, and was sentenced to one year and six months from the above court on August 16, 2001, and appealed with the court 2001No760 on October 26, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(2) The Defendant Culture Broadcasting, on June 3, 2001, broadcasted that “the truth - the truth of Makao” under the title “as of Mar. 25, 2001,” that the Plaintiffs were detained on charges of Non-Party 2, rather than Non-Party 2’s re-investigation after the broadcast of the instant program on Mar. 25, 2001.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the occurrence of tort liability

(1) The occurrence of corrective reporting obligation and liability

(A) Details of the victim

The defamation is established by expressing, intentionally or by negligence, specific facts that may undermine the social assessment of a specific person, and in order to recognize defamation, it is necessary to first examine whether the victim is specified, and even if an article or image that is published without a person's name, etc., makes it difficult to recognize the victim's identity, considering the surrounding circumstances, the identity of the victim can be known in light of the contents of the expression, and if there are many people who know such facts, the victim can be deemed to have been identified.

According to the above facts, the defendants did not specify the plaintiffs' name in the program of this case and the plaintiffs' name, which is the criminal cases belonging to the Chungcheong Police Agency and the Chungcheong Police Agency. The plaintiffs' name was not specified in the program of this case. The plaintiffs' name was produced only by the interview interview site of the plaintiff Shin Jae-chul and the face was processed, and the voice was broadcasted by altering the voice, but the plaintiffs' name was shown in the interview site of the plaintiff Shin Jae-chul and the "new ○/criminal charge" was displayed in the interview site of the plaintiff Shin Jae-chul, and the defendant Or-ok was called the plaintiffs as the "Yongbuk-do Police Agency" and the plaintiff was called the "Songbuk-do Police Agency" in the front situation. In full view of the surrounding circumstances, since the plaintiffs who are criminal offenders belonging to the Chungcheong Police Agency and the defendant was also the plaintiff, the defendant was specified in the program of this case as the plaintiffs in this case.

(B) Formation of defamation

Whether a press report constitutes defamation should state specific facts that may undermine the social evaluation of others, as well as the overall impression that viewers offer to viewers on the premise of an ordinary method of contact with the broadcast. The program of this case contains the following facts: “The plaintiffs received a report from Nonparty 3 on the case of prostitution mediation, etc., but requested Nonparty 2 to visit Nonparty 3 in advance, and met Nonparty 3 at the front of the investigation of the case, and conducted physical search that is close to sexual indecent act to Nonparty 3; Nonparty 3, the victim, was conducted at the front of the resignation coffee shop; and Nonparty 3, the victim, the victim, was even at the same office of the North Korean Provincial Police Agency and the defendant did not appear to have suffered any harm to the plaintiffs' new police agency as an objective fact or overall increase, and thus, it cannot be accepted that the plaintiffs did not use the program of this case, excluding the plaintiffs' new police agencies, nor did they appear to have suffered any harm to the plaintiffs' new police agencies.”

Thus, the defendant Orale and the user of defendant Orale and the defendant Orale who planned and produced the instant program and broadcasted the instant program, thereby infringing upon the objective evaluation received from the society, which is the police officer who should investigate the case fairly and faithfully for the people. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages, and they are liable to report correction as an appropriate disposition to restore their reputation pursuant to Article 764 of the Civil Act.

(2) Determination as to the defendants' defense of the grounds for excluding illegality

(A) Grounds for rejecting illegality in defamation

The Defendants asserted that the broadcast of the instant program is solely for public interest and its content is true, and therefore, the Defendants’ act is a lawful act without illegality.

However, even if a certain expression impairs another person's reputation, if the expression is solely for the public interest and its purpose is for the sake of the public interest, it shall be deemed that there is no illegality if it is true or if there is a considerable reason to believe that it is true. Here, "when its purpose is solely for the public interest" means that the alleged fact concerns the public interest when objectively viewed that it is for the purpose of the public interest, and the perpetrator also indicates the fact for the public interest. If the principal purpose or motive of the actor is for the public interest, if there is an incidental private interest purpose or motive, it is impossible to say that there is an incidental objective purpose or motive, and "the fact" here means that the important part is consistent with the objective fact, and even if there is a little difference from the truth or a somewhat exaggerated expression (Supreme Court Decision 200Da37524, 37531 delivered on January 22, 2002).

(B) Determination on public nature

First, it is examined whether the program of this case was broadcasted solely for the public interest purpose as a matter of the public interest, and in light of the content of the program of this case and its production process as seen earlier, it is considered that the program of this case dealt with social issues related to public interest and is broadcasted solely for the purpose of public interest.

(c) Determination as to the truth;

The Defendants asserted that: (a) part of the Plaintiffs received Nonparty 2’s request from Nonparty 2 and met Nonparty 3 before investigating Nonparty 3 on the charge of Nonparty 2’s prostitution; (b) the Plaintiffs did not properly investigate Nonparty 2’s suspicion of prostitution; and (c) Nonparty 3, the victim during the investigation process, was subject to physical search close to his sexual indecent act from Nonparty 2; and (c) Nonparty 3 was sent to his office in the Chungcheong-do Police Agency, Ma-dong, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and Nonparty 3, who was irrelevant to the case, and walked from one of the Plaintiffs, was true; and (d) it is consistent with objective facts even if there was any falsity or section of the content, the Defendants’ act of broadcasting the program of this case is unlawful; and even if it was false, it constitutes a case where the Defendants believe that it is true.

1) Determination as to whether the facts alleged above, (1), (2), and (3) are true

As to whether the above facts alleged by the Defendants are true or not, the statements in Gap evidence 12-3, 12, and 13-6, Eul evidence 13-3, and Eul evidence 3-4, 5, and 9 as to whether the above facts alleged by the Defendants are true or not, and there is no evidence to acknowledge them differently.

2) Determination as to whether the Defendants had any reasonable ground to believe that each of the facts was true

In determining whether or not there is a considerable reason to believe the alleged facts in relation to the act of defamation of the media such as broadcasting, etc., the determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account whether or not a prompt request is made for the broadcast, whether or not materials such as the broadcast are reliable, and whether or not it is easy to verify the truth, such as face-to-face with victims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da24207, Sept. 30, 1997; 97Da34563, May 8, 1998). In the case of the program for accusation of current facts such as the program of this case, it is easy for general viewers to accept the contents as fact, while the request for swiftness is larger than the general report. Thus, unless there are any special circumstances, if the broadcast is based on reliable materials, not merely on a rumor, suppression, and unilateral information, the content of the broadcast cannot be seen as a considerable reason to confirm the truth or its contents through investigation activities, etc., and even if there are considerable implications or reasons to confirm the content of the broadcast.

According to the records, etc. of Nos. 3-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of evidence Nos. 3-1, 3-2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 presented by the Defendants, Defendant Orala may acknowledge the fact that Nonparty 2 arranged Nonparty 3 to the Manung-si's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man's Man

(D) Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendants' defenses against the rejection of illegality cannot be accepted.

B. Details and scope of tort liability

(1) Damages

Since it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiffs suffered a considerable mental suffering due to the damage of honor by the broadcasting of the program of this case, the defendants are obliged to compensate for the plaintiffs' mental suffering from that act in monetary. As such, with respect to the amount of compensation to be compensated by the defendants, the amount of compensation shall be determined as a health class, the title and content of the program of this case, the fishing gear used in the program of this case, the broadcasting time, the broadcasting time, the percentage of false facts in the program of this case, the degree of effort to confirm the defendants' facts, the attitude of the defendants after the broadcasting of this case, the degree of the plaintiffs' specific degree in the program of this case, the influence of the broadcasting of this case on the plaintiffs' duties as police officers, the location where the defendant cultural broadcasting of this case accounts for the media of our country, and other various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be compensated by the defendants to the remaining plaintiffs as 8 million won and consolation money to the plaintiffs.

Therefore, as a joint tortfeasor, the Defendants are obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from March 25, 2001, which is the broadcasting date of the instant program to August 22, 2003, and from the next day to the full payment date, the Defendants are obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of 8,00,000 won, 3,000,000 won, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings to the Plaintiffs.

(2)an appropriate measure to restore honor;

In addition, taking into account the various circumstances shown in the instant case, ordering the Defendants to compensate for money is insufficient to restore the reputation of the Plaintiffs. As such, the Plaintiffs have the right to seek the publication of a correction report as an appropriate measure to restore their reputation. Furthermore, in full view of the content, time and method of the correction report, health class, broadcast content and broadcasting time of the program in this case, etc., the Defendant Culture Broadcasting 2580 program, which is first broadcasted after the judgment of this case, is changed to 2580 program, which is now its title, into 2580, which is now called 'the same day, which is being broadcasted in the same time as that of the current name,' and its title is changed to 2580, which is now called 'the first page, which is being broadcasted in the same time as that of the Makao, etc.). In addition, this article continued to describe the title "the correction report as to the 2580th class size of the Maoo-si's woman trade in the upper page."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)