[2] The grounds for rejecting illegality in a case where a person defames another person by pointing out a fact through the media, and the criteria for determining whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the content of the expression is true

[3] Whether a media company, which objectively reported only the external progress of the procedure, such as an investigation commenced by a third party’s criminal charge regarding matters concerning public interest, is obligated to verify the specific truth of the accusation (negative in principle)

[4] The case holding that since two newspaper articles among three newspaper articles that reported the case of a criminal complaint against a lawyer's unlawful act are true as they reported the objective progress of the case, and their contents are about public interest, the report's unlawful act is not unlawful

[2] Even in a case where an act of damaging another person’s reputation by expressing a fact through the press is committed, if it is proved that it is true when it is for the public interest only, the act is not unlawful, and even if its authenticity is not proven, if there are reasonable grounds to believe it as true, it shall be deemed that it is not unlawful. Furthermore, whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the contents of the expression is true or not shall be determined in light of the following: (a) whether the actor has conducted an adequate and sufficient investigation to confirm the authenticity of the contents of the statement, in full view of various circumstances, such as the contents of the publicly alleged fact, the grounds for believing the contents of the statement as true, the certainty and credibility of the materials, the easiness of verifying the facts, the degree of damage to the victim, etc., and (b) whether the actor has conducted an objective and reasonable

[3] In a case where only the external progress of the investigation procedure, such as the investigation commenced by a third party’s criminal charge regarding a matter of public interest, is objectively reported, barring any special circumstance, such as: (a) the content of the accusation itself gives the impression that the truth is true to ordinary readers; (b) the accusation itself handles the accusation itself in a manner that is favorable to the interest of the other party; or (c) the accusation is likely to easily doubt whether the content of the accusation is true when considering a reasonable person; and (d) the content of the accusation does not have a duty to enter the specific content of the accusation and confirm whether it is true.

[4] The case holding that since two newspaper articles among three newspaper articles that reported a criminal complaint case against a lawyer's illegal act are true as they reported the objective progress of the case, and their contents are about the public interest, the report's unlawful act is not unlawful

1. As to the ground of appeal on the victim's specific specification

In order to establish tort caused by defamation, the victim must be specified, but it does not necessarily require a person’s name or organization’s name to be specified at the time of such specification. Even if a person’s name is not indicated or two letters or only social is used, if it is possible to find out the identity of the victim by considering the contents of the expression in light of the surrounding circumstances, the victim is specified (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da50213, May 10, 2002, etc.).

The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, and determined that the victim could easily find out that the “A” person working in the field of the bar industry or in its surrounding areas could have been easily identified, on the ground that although the articles listed in [Attachment 1, 2, and 3 of the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter “each article of this case”) include “A” and “B” among the articles listed in [Attachment 1, 2, and 3] of the judgment of the court of first instance, his occupation is specified, and that his age and the time he worked as a civil office.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to the victim's specific purpose in defamation as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

2. As to the ground of appeal on the ground for exclusion of illegality

A. Even in a case where an act of impairing another person’s reputation by expressing a fact through the press is committed, if it is proved that it is true for the public interest only, the act is not unlawful, and even if its authenticity is not proven, if there are reasonable grounds to believe it as true, it shall be deemed that it is not unlawful. Furthermore, whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the content of the expression is true or not shall be determined in light of the following: (a) whether the actor has conducted an adequate and sufficient investigation to confirm the authenticity of the content of the statement, in full view of various circumstances, such as the contents of the publicly alleged fact, the basis and reliability of the material believed as true or the degree of damage to the victim; and (b) whether the actor has conducted an adequate and adequate investigation to confirm the authenticity of the statement; and (c) whether the statement is supported by objective and reasonable materials

B. Based on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that there was no proof that the contents of the instant article were true, and further, rejected the Defendants’ assertion that there was considerable reason to believe that the content of the instant article’s accusation was true, taking into account the following: (a) there is no evidence to support that the Defendants engaged in sufficient news gathering activities, such as confirming objective data in order to verify that the content of the Nonparty’s accusation was true; (b) there was a serious impact on the Plaintiff’s honor or credit; and (c) the report was not urgent without additional confirmation of facts; and (d) it is difficult to deem that there was a considerable reason to believe that the content of the instant article’

C. Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, we affirm the judgment of the court below as to the tort by the article 3 attached to the judgment of the court of first instance (as of March 30, 2006). Therefore, this part of the judgment below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence and the grounds for excluding illegality in defamation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

D. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below regarding defamation based on each article listed in [Attachment 1 and 2] of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was prepared prior to the above article (the date of March 14, 2006 and March 15, 2006).

According to the records, the contents of each article mentioned in the above attached Tables 1 and 2 are reported by the non-party against the plaintiff, the contents of a criminal charge and civil lawsuit, the process of the prosecution's commencement and its progress, etc., and it does not include a report by the same trend as shown in attached Tables 3. Even according to the judgment of the court below, the objective progress itself is true. Further, as stated in the judgment of the court below, the contents of each article mentioned in the above attached Tables 1 and 2 are dealt with the public interest of the attorney-at-law in light of the public characteristics of the attorney-at-law's business and the necessity to reduce the harm caused by the corruption of the attorney-at-law's business.

In a case where only the external progress of an investigation procedure, such as an investigation commenced by a third party’s criminal charge regarding matters regarding the public interest, is objectively reported, barring any special circumstance, such as: (a) the content of the accusation itself gives the impression that the truth is true to ordinary readers by comprehensively taking account of the title of the article, method of the report, expression, etc.; (b) excluding personal interests of the other party to the accusation or making a reasonable doubt as to whether the content of the accusation is true when viewed by a reasonable person; (c) barring any special circumstance, the content of the accusation cannot be said to have a duty to enter the specific content of the accusation from the side where the report is made to confirm

In this case where such special circumstances are not peeped, the news reports of each article described in the above attached Tables 1 and 2, which were independently reported solely on the ground that it is a series of related articles reported on the ground that the purpose of the article is solely for the public interest and it is proved that it is true. Thus, the news reports of each article described in the attached Tables 1 and 2, which were independently reported on the ground that it is not justified in tort by the above attached Tables 3, cannot be acknowledged.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to tort by article Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for the denial of illegality in defamation, or in violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. However, the court below cannot specify the amount of compensation for tort by article No. 3 of the judgment of the court below as to the whole by recognizing all of the articles of this case as tort,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendants shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)