[1] Whether a program subject to deliberation on fairness and public nature of a broadcast under the Broadcasting Act is limited to “news broadcast program” (negative)

[2] The meaning of the objectivity, fairness and balance as provided by Article 6(1) of the Broadcasting Act and Articles 9(1) and (2) and 14 of the former Regulations on Broadcasting Deliberation and the meaning of “social issues or matters of profound conflict of interests”

[3] Whether the characteristics of each broadcast medium, channel, and program should be considered when deliberating on whether the broadcast content maintains fairness and public nature (affirmative)

[4] Whether a broadcast content constitutes a violation of Article 20(2) of the former Regulations on Broadcasting Deliberation in a case where an expression of a fact that defames a public figure subject to historical evaluation is damaged (negative in principle), and where there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the alleged fact is true or true as a matter of public interest, whether the broadcast content is subject to sanctions under Article 100(1) of the Broadcasting Act (negative)

[5] The case holding that in a case where the Korea Communications Commission ordered disciplinary action and warning against a person related to the relevant broadcast program on the ground that each of the above broadcasts violated the provisions on objectivity, fairness and reputation in the former provisions on the deliberation of broadcasting, on the ground that the said broadcasts violated the provisions on objectivity, fairness and reputation among the provisions on the former deliberation of broadcasting, in a case where it is difficult to readily conclude that each of the above broadcasts did not distort the truth or reflect the opinions of the parties concerned, and that it did not violate the duty to maintain objectivity, fairness and balance under the former provisions on the deliberation of broadcasting, on the basis of the overall impression given by the media, channel, and program to the viewers based on the overall impression given by the broadcasting, and on the whole impression given by the viewers, the review of objectivity, fairness and balance, and balance, it cannot be concluded that each of the above broadcasts did not violate the duty to regulate objectivity, fairness and balance under the provisions on the former deliberation of broadcasting, and that it did not violate Article 20 (2) of the former provisions on reputation and reputation.

[1] The Broadcasting Act delegates the Korea Communications Standards Commission to deliberate on fairness and public nature of a broadcast field. Accordingly, the provisions pertaining to deliberation on broadcasting demand fairness and objectivity in overall broadcast fields, and adopts it as a standard for deliberation. Thus, the program subject to deliberation shall not be deemed to be limited to news reports-related broadcast programs.

[2] In full view of Article 6(1) of the Broadcasting Act and Articles 9(1) and (2) and 14 of the former Regulations on Broadcasting Deliberation (amended by Regulations No. 100 of the Korea Communications Standards Commission, Jan. 15, 2014); legislative purport of Article 9(1) and Article 14 of the same Act; literal meaning, etc., the term “ objectivity” means that a person does not distort any fact, but handles all possible accurate facts, as far as possible, based on objective facts that can be proven; “fairness” means a person who does not deal with social issues or interests, and “fair balance” means that a person gives an opportunity to equal the time and proportion of each position to the parties or broadcasting concerned, taking into account the social influence of the parties or broadcasting objects, the nature of the case, the nature of the program, etc. Here, “social issues or matters in dispute” refers to a case where social interests or conflicts between members are significantly different to social and social interests.

[3] [Majority Opinion] Examining objectivity, fairness, and balance by applying a uniform standard without taking into account the specific differences in the influence of broadcasting on society, the Broadcasting Act differs from the medium, channel, and broadcast field, thereby ensuring the quality of people’s lives and ensuring the diversity of broadcasting at the same time by pursuing various purposes through each broadcast program, and thereby excessively restricting the role of broadcasting to form a fair public opinion forum. Accordingly, when deliberating on whether the content of broadcasting maintains fairness and public nature, the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program should be considered.

Specifically, this is as follows.

① In examining the objectivity, fairness and balance of broadcasting, the Korea Communications Standards Commission shall pay attention not to infringe upon the autonomy, expertise, and diversity of broadcast media or channels that broadcast the relevant broadcast program, by sufficiently taking into account the degree or scope of influence that the broadcast media or channels that broadcast the relevant broadcast program have on the lives, sentiments, and formation of public opinions. Furthermore, if the broadcast media or channels that broadcast the relevant broadcast program do not have much degree or scope of influence on the lives, sentiments, and formation of public opinions, and if the broadcast media or channels that mainly contribute to enabling the exchange of diverse information and opinions, it is reasonable to relax the review criteria on the objectivity, fairness, and balance of broadcasting. Here, easing the review criteria is to relax the criteria for examining whether the broadcast content complies with the objectivity, fairness, and balance under the regulations on the review of broadcasting (hereinafter “Review Regulations”), and ultimately, this means that the violation of the duty to maintain objectivity, fairness, and balance under the Review Regulations on Broadcasting Contents ought to be strictly recognized. Through this, autonomy, expertise, and diversity of the relevant broadcast program ultimately enhance the guarantee of freedom of broadcasting and press.

② Broadcasting programs produced by viewers are introduced for the public role of broadcasting that forms diverse social opinions by reflecting a minority’s understanding and perspective. Restrictions are placed on the quantity of technology, capital, and accessible information in that viewers are produced, and their expertise and popularity are bound to be insufficient. These limitations are the fact that viewers with different opinions can resolve by producing and broadcasting broadcast programs from their respective perspective. Therefore, broadcast programs produced by viewers are different from those directly produced by broadcasting business operators in terms of the degree of expectation of the authenticity and reliability of broadcast content or the degree of social influence. Therefore, it is necessary to relax the criteria for review compared to the programs produced by the Korea Communications Standards Commission when examining the objectivity, fairness and balance of broadcast programs produced by viewers.

③ As broadcast programs for news reports (hereinafter “news programs”) directly affect the formation of individual opinions and social public opinions, impartiality and objectivity are required as prescribed by Article 6(1) of the Broadcasting Act. On the contrary, broadcast programs related to culture (hereinafter “cultural programs”) and entertainment programs (hereinafter “entertainment programs”) for the purpose of improving the people’s culture and education, such as documentary media, knowledge, living, and cultural lectures, or drama, film, sports, etc., and diversification of leisure life, do not have the same impact as news reports. Therefore, when examining whether the Korea Communications Standards Commission violated its duty to maintain objectivity, fairness and balance, it is difficult to deem that the review standards differentiated from news programs should be applied in light of their characteristics.

[Dissenting Opinion by Justice Jo Hee-de, Justice Kwon Soon-il, Justice Park Sang-ok, Justice Lee Ki-ok, Justice Lee Ki-taik, Justice Lee Dong-won, and Justice Lee Dong-won] If the meaning of the term “detailedly mitigated criteria for review” used by the Majority Opinion ought to be strictly recognized as violating the duty of objectivity, fairness, and balance, it is nothing more than a reflection of the established legal doctrine of the Supreme Court, which is the principle of strict interpretation of the relevant statute as to the basis of disposition disposition. The practical meaning of the “wholly strict criteria for review” as alleged by the Majority Opinion is, ultimately, to strengthen the degree of burden of proof of the Korea Communications Commission as to the existence of the grounds for disposition or to consider the exercise of discretionary power when determining the level of sanctions. Therefore, even if the concept of “wholly mitigated criteria for review” is not newly presented, the purport of the term

As long as there is no substance of relaxed criteria for review and there is no independent meaning, the core of the review of broadcast according to the logic presented by the majority opinion is to be applied to any medium, channel, and program.

The Majority Opinion presents the influence of media, viewers’ participation programs, and cultural and entertainment programs as a standard for determining whether relaxed criteria for review are applied. However, only the simple criteria related to each broadcast can not be an explanation of what is specific subject to relaxed criteria for review.

Furthermore, according to the Majority Opinion’s conclusion, the issue of violation of the Review Regulations depends on the influence of a specific medium, channel, and program is different, and thus, it goes against the rule of law required by the Constitution, which permits and justify the arbitrary disposition of administrative agencies.

In addition, it is difficult to find out how different criteria for review should be applied in consideration of the characteristics of each broadcast, and there is no way to apply relatively relaxed criteria for review.

Ultimately, the review according to the relatively mitigated standard of review referred to in the Majority Opinion is against the rule of law administration, and thus cannot be accepted.

[4] Even if a statement of a fact that a public official’s reputation subject to historical evaluation among the broadcast content was impaired, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be deemed a violation of Article 20(2) of the former Regulations on Broadcast Deliberation (amended by the Rules of the Korea Communications Standards Commission No. 100, Jan. 15, 2014; hereinafter “former Review Regulations”), and where the alleged fact concerns public interest and is true or has considerable reason to believe that it is true, it may not be subject to sanctions under Article 100(1) of the Broadcasting Act pursuant to Article 20(3) of the former Review Regulations.

Here, the phrase “when the objective is solely for the public interest” refers to a statement of the fact related to the public interest when objectively viewed, and an actor also indicates the fact for the public interest. If the principal objective or motive of an actor is for the public interest, even if there is an incidental private interest purpose or motive, it is unreasonable to say that the expression “a serious fact” means a fact that is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the content thereof, and even if there is a little exaggeration or exaggeration of the fact, it is difficult to say that there is a little difference from objective facts in detail.

In addition, defamation and insult should be dealt with separately. Defamation or indecent expressions without a statement of fact may constitute a violation of Article 27(2) of the former Review Regulations providing that “A broadcast shall not give viewers a sense of aversion due to indecent expressions, etc.” (see, e.g., Article 27(2) of the former Review Regulations, and cannot be included in violation of Article 20 of the former Review Regulations stipulating the prohibition of defamation.

[5] [Majority Opinion] The case holding that the lower court’s determination that a broadcasting business entity, a foundation operating a certain amount of television channel (Pubos and viewer production broadcast) as prescribed by the Broadcasting Act, did not comply with its duty to deliberate on a broadcast program, and that broadcast program “(name 1 omitted)” and “(name 2 omitted) program” produced by a viewers, unlike the fact that the Korea Communications Commission had violated its duty to deliberate on a broadcast program (amended by Rule 100 of the former Review Regulations of the Korea Communications Commission; hereinafter “former Review Regulations”) and thus, it is reasonable for the said broadcasting business entity to have violated its duty to deliberate on a broadcast program, and that it did not directly comply with the relevant broadcast program’s objective and balance on the grounds that it did not comply with the objective and objective content of the broadcast program, and that it did not directly reflect the relevant content of the broadcast program’s content on the grounds that it violated its duty to deliberate on a broadcast program and its content, and that it did not directly comply with the relevant terrestrial broadcasting program’s opinions on the grounds that it violated the relevant content and content of the broadcast program.

[대법관 조희대, 대법관 권순일, 대법관 박상옥, 대법관 이기택, 대법관 안철상, 대법관 이동원의 반대의견] 위 각 제재처분의 처분사유는 위 각 방송이 이승만, 박정희 대통령을 비판하였다는 것이 아니라 그 내용이 객관성·공정성·균형성을 갖추지 못하였고, 사자 명예존중 의무를 위반하였다는 것이다. 그런데 위 각 방송이 근거로 내세운 자료들은 역사적 인물인 이승만, 박정희 대통령에 관한 다양하고 방대한 자료들 중 제작 의도에 부합하도록 선별된 것이었고, 선별된 자료들 중에서도 제작 의도에 부합하지 아니하는 내용은 누락하거나, 부합하는 것처럼 보이는 일부 내용만을 발췌·편집하여 마치 그것만이 유일한 사실인 것처럼 꾸몄을 뿐만 아니라, 사용된 표현 역시 저속하고 모욕적인 것으로 점철되어 있다. 따라서 위 각 방송은 방송에 요구되는 최소한의 객관성·공정성·균형성을 갖추지 못하였고, 사자 명예존중 의무를 준수하지도 못하였으며 사자에 대한 모욕과 조롱이 ‘오로지 공공의 이익을 위한 것’에 포섭될 수도 없으므로, 위 각 제재처분이 적법하다는 원심판결에는 아무런 잘못이 없다.

[1] Articles 1, 5, 6(1), 10(1)1, 32, 33(1) and (2), and 100(1) of the Broadcasting Act, Article 25 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of the Korea Communications Commission / [2] Article 6(1) of the Broadcasting Act / [3] Articles 6(1), 10(1), 32, and 33 of the Broadcasting Act / [4] Articles 5(3), 10(1) / [5] Articles 5(3), 6(1), 10(1), 32, and 100(1) of the Broadcasting Act

[4] Supreme Court Decision 2013Da34013 Decided May 24, 2016

RTV (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Yang Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Communications Commission (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Lee Young-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu61394 decided July 15, 2015

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Case history and key issue

A. Case history

The reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court reveal the following facts.

1) The Plaintiff is a program provider as prescribed by the Broadcasting Act, a CATV broadcasting business entity, or a satellite broadcasting business entity, which operates a specialized television channel for the entire or partial duration of a specific channel, by concluding an exclusive use contract with the CATV broadcasting business entity or satellite broadcasting business entity. The Plaintiff, via the said channel, broadcasted the program “(name 1 omitted of the program)” (hereinafter “instant 1 broadcasting”) and “(name 2 omitted of the program) program” (hereinafter “instant 2 broadcasting”) produced by the Korean Institute of National Issues, a viewer, around January 2013 (hereinafter “each of the instant broadcasts”).

2) The instant broadcast 1 is composed of re-evaluation of Lee Man-man by inserting up to 13 Epids related to Lee Man-man. The instant broadcast consists of re-evaluation of Park Jong-hee, based on the content of the press report drawn up in the United States. The instant broadcast 2 consists of re-evaluation of Park Jong-hee’s president from the view that the economic development of Korea was mainly resulting from the transition of the economic development of Korea to export subscription figures according to the U.S.’s East Asian antipublic policy.

3) On August 21, 2013, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to take disciplinary measures and warnings against the persons related to the relevant broadcast program pursuant to Article 100(1)3, 4, and 20(4) of the Broadcasting Act on the ground that each of the instant broadcasts violated Article 9(1), (2), and 14 of the former Regulations on Broadcasting Review (amended by Regulations No. 100 of the Korea Communications Standards Commission, Jan. 15, 2014; hereinafter “former Review Regulations”) and Article 20(2) on the respect of respect of objectivity and fairness, and issued a notice of the facts subjected to such disciplinary measures (hereinafter “each of the instant sanctions”).

4) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of each of the instant sanctions against the Plaintiff dissatisfied therewith.

B. The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that each of the instant sanctions was lawful on the following grounds, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment and adding a partial judgment.

1) The Broadcasting Act delegates the Korea Communications Standards Commission with the authority to deliberate on the fairness and public nature of broadcasting as a whole, and cannot be deemed to have delegated only the news programs subject to deliberation on objectivity and fairness (hereinafter “news programs”). As such, the Korea Communications Standards Commission may deliberate on each of the instant broadcasts.

2) In light of the composition, content, editing, etc. of each of the instant broadcasts, it is reasonable to view that the instant broadcasts lost fairness and objectivity by editing or reconsting facts in favor of a specific position without merely putting any new point of view or suspicion into a new point of view, and by scarting the president of Park Jong-hee, thereby impairing the deceased’s reputation.

3) Each of the instant broadcasts, from an excessively unilateral and negative perspective on the sole basis of specific data, has slaged the former presidents, and its degree is considerably significant. Even if it is a bloring channel, the Plaintiff’s responsibility for complying with fairness and objectivity under the Broadcasting Act cannot be mitigated as a program provider. The Plaintiff’s freedom of speech and press infringed on by each of the instant sanctions rather than the public interest to be achieved by each of the instant sanctions, and the infringement of the Plaintiff’s right to know is much greater than that of the public interest, and thus, cannot be deemed unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary power.

C. Grounds of appeal and the issues of this case

The key issue of the instant case is: (a) whether the programs subject to deliberation on fairness and public nature of broadcasting under the Broadcasting Act are limited to the news report program (ground of appeal No. 1); (b) whether the content of each of the instant broadcasts violates objectivity (Articles 9(1) and 14) and the obligation to maintain impartiality and balance (Article 9(2)); (c) whether the content of each of the instant broadcasts violates Article 20(2) of the former Review Regulations (ground of appeal No. 3); and (4) whether each of the instant sanctions is unlawful by deviating from and abusing the bounds of discretion (ground of appeal No. 4).

2. Functions of broadcasting and the purport of a broadcast deliberation system;

A. The press is a pillar that supports democracy. No democracy may be established unless free expression of opinion and active debate are guaranteed. Therefore, the freedom of speech and publication guaranteed by Article 21(1) of the Constitution is one of the essential conditions for realizing the declaration under Article 1(1) of the Constitution, “the Republic of Korea is a democratic Republic” (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da61654, Oct. 30, 2018).

The freedom of speech and press under Article 21(1) of the Constitution includes the freedom of broadcasting. The freedom of broadcasting includes not only the characteristics as a subjective right, but also the characteristics that make it possible to exchange various information and opinions possible to contribute to the substantial guarantee of the freedom of speech, which serves as the basis for the existence and development of democracy. In order to guarantee such freedom of broadcasting, the freedom and independence of broadcast programming from the various powers of society as well as the state power should be guaranteed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da15660, May 10, 2012).

However, it cannot be denied that there is a need to regulate the contents of broadcasting in view of the risk of negative impacts on broadcasting that has a large influence on the formation of public opinion and that leads to distortion of facts or biased broadcasting on a specific position. However, a variety of opinions can only be formed when competing in the free market of ideas. The society can contribute to the development and public welfare of the State through autonomous regulation and purification action. As such, the State should refrain to the maximum extent possible to intervene in the contents of broadcasting so that the inherent role of broadcasting may not be unreasonably decline.

B. Article 32 of the Broadcasting Act provides that the Korea Communications Commission shall have the authority to deliberate and decide on whether the contents of a broadcast maintain impartiality and public nature, and comply with public responsibilities. Article 33(1) of the Broadcasting Act provides that the Korea Communications Commission shall establish and publicly announce the regulations on the deliberation of broadcasts in order to deliberate on the impartiality and public nature of broadcasts (hereinafter “Review Regulations”). Furthermore, each subparagraph of Article 33(2) of the Broadcasting Act provides for matters to be included in the Review Regulations. Furthermore, according to Article 10(1) of the Broadcasting Act, Article 25(1) and (3) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Korea Communications Commission, the Korea Communications Commission may determine sanctions in cases where it determines that the contents of a broadcast violate the Review Regulations, and the Korea Communications Commission may impose sanctions accordingly. Article 100(1) and (3) of the Broadcasting Act provides for the correction, revision or suspension of the relevant broadcast program, disciplinary action against a person in charge of broadcast programming, person in charge of broadcast programming, and the imposition of penalty surcharges to the person concerned.

Such broadcasting review system as prescribed in the Broadcasting Act, etc. may bring about a side effect on the self-regulation of expressive acts by lowering the freedom of expression of broadcasting business operators, etc. to guarantee the role of broadcasting that enables the free formation of citizens in a democratic society, thereby hindering the existence and development of democracy. Therefore, the interpretation and application of relevant provisions, such as the Broadcasting Act, which provides for the deliberation of the contents of broadcasting, should be carefully conducted in consideration of the impact on the freedom of speech.

3. Scope of programs subject to deliberation on fairness and public nature;

A. In full view of the content and structure of the relevant laws and regulations and the following circumstances, the Broadcasting Act delegated the Korea Communications Standards Commission to deliberate on fairness and public nature with respect to the overall broadcast fields. Accordingly, the Review Regulations demands fairness and objectivity and adopt the overall broadcast fields as the criteria for deliberation. As such, the programs subject to deliberation cannot be deemed to be limited to the news report program.

1) The Broadcasting Act imposes a public responsibility on all broadcasts regardless of a broadcast field (Articles 1, 5, and 10(1)1). Impartiality and public nature of broadcast content is a request derived from the public responsibility of broadcasting, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the broadcast program is required only to a news report program. A news report program takes an important social role in the process of forming public opinion through coverage, commentaries, or commentaries, etc. of current events related to overall domestic and foreign politics, economy, society, culture, etc., and thus, the degree of such demand is more strong than that of another broadcast field. Article 6(1) of the Broadcasting Act that provides that “A broadcast report shall be fair and objective.” It is also deemed that Article 6(1) of the Broadcasting Act that emphasizes that fairness and objectivity of a news report is required more strongly than that of another broadcast field, such as culture, entertainment, etc.

2) Without limiting the scope of deliberation by the Broadcasting Act to news reports programs, the Korea Communications Standards Commission grants the authority to deliberate and decide on the content of broadcasts (Article 32) and stipulates that the Review Regulations for deliberation on fairness and public nature shall be enacted and publicly announced (Article 33(1)).

In addition, Article 33(2) of the Broadcasting Act provides that "any other matters concerning the deliberation duties of the Korea Communications Standards Commission under the provisions of this Act" shall be set out in subparagraphs 1 through 15, and Article 33(2) of the same Act provides that "the matters concerning the fairness and public nature of news reports, commentaries," among the matters to be deliberated by the Korea Communications Standards Commission, is reasonable to interpret "the matters concerning the fairness and public nature of news reports, commentaries, etc." as a representative and important provision among those to be deliberated by the Korea Communications Commission

Accordingly, the former Review Regulations do not limit the contents to news reporting programs in Articles 9 and 14, and require fairness and objectivity of broadcasting to the entire broadcast field.

3) The recent classification of broadcasting fields, such as news reports, culture, and entertainment, is becoming unclear, and the convergence of different fields, such as human news management, and news shock, is active. In such a situation, if the news reporting program is limited to those subject to deliberation, the possibility that the broadcast deliberation system cannot function properly cannot be ruled out. Since the launch of the Korea Communications Standards Commission in 2008, the Korea Communications Standards Commission has continuously deliberated on fairness and public nature of all broadcast programs in all fields.

B. If so, the Broadcasting Act delegates the Korea Communications Standards Commission to deliberate on the fairness and public nature of the overall broadcast field, and it cannot be deemed that it limited the news report program to the news report program. In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on deliberation on fairness and public nature, as otherwise alleged in

4. Whether the obligation to maintain objectivity, fairness and balance is violated;

A. The meaning of objectivity, fairness and balance under the former Review Regulations

Article 6(1) of the Broadcasting Act provides, “A broadcast report shall be impartial and objective.” Article 9 of the former Review Regulations provides, “A broadcast shall not distort the truth, and shall be objectively dealt with.” Article 9(1) of the same Act provides, “A broadcast shall maintain fairness and balance and reflect the opinions of the parties concerned in a balanced manner when dealing with social issues or matters of profound conflict of interest.” Article 14 of the same Act provides, “A broadcast shall be dealt with by an accurate and objective method, and broadcast shall not cause confusion to viewers by broadcasting as an ambiguous fact.”

Although Article 9(1) of the former Review Regulations is located under the title "fairness", the expression is rather similar to Article 14 of the former Review Regulations that provides for the objectivity of broadcasting, and its content is not consistent with the idea of fairness of broadcasting that guarantees the diversity of opinions on social issues or matters of extreme conflict of interests, but is in line with the idea of objectivity of broadcasting that broadcasts accurately and accurately broadcast as far as possible based on the objective facts verifiable.

In full view of the legislative purport, literal meaning, etc. of each of the above provisions, the term “ objectivity” means that a person does not distort any fact, but handles any matter that is based on an objective fact that can be proven accurately, as far as possible, and the term “fair” means that a person does not deal with social issues or matters of which interests are sharply conflicting in delivering a variety of views and opinions with respect to social issues or matters of which interests are sharply conflicting, and the term “fair” means that a person treats the matter equally by providing an opportunity substantially equal in light of the social influence of the parties concerned and broadcasting concerned, the nature of the case, the nature of the program, the nature of the program, etc., instead of a quantitative balance that the person concerned or broadcasting concerned should equally take into account the social influence of the subject matter, the nature of the case, etc.

(b) Necessity for deliberation, taking into account the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program;

(i)the classification of media, channels and programs;

The press media can be divided into printed media, broadcast media, and communication media. Of these, the broadcasting media shall be divided into terrestrial broadcasting business, CATV broadcasting business, satellite broadcasting business, program providing business, etc. (Article 2 subparagraph 2).

The Broadcasting Act defines the unit of broadcasting provided in the form of continuous flow or information system through the same frequency band as “channel” (Article 2 Subparag. 20-2), and classify broadcasting fields as news reports, culture, entertainment programs (Article 2 Subparag. 16).

(ii) characteristics by medium, channel, and program;

Article 32 of the Broadcasting Act provides that “The Korea Communications Standards Commission shall consider the characteristics of each medium and channel when deliberating on the fairness and public nature of broadcast content.” Article 5(1) of the former Review Regulations provides that “The Commission shall respect the creativity, autonomy and independence of each broadcast medium and each broadcast channel.” Article 5(2) of the former Review Regulations provides that “The Commission shall consider the difference between the expertise and diversity of broadcast media and each broadcast channel when deliberating in accordance with this provision.”

In addition, information or opinion can be presented in various forms even in the same medium or channel, and the degree of influence of broadcasting on society is different by medium and channel, as well as by broadcast program.

If broadcasting review objectivity, fairness, and balance by applying a uniform standard without considering a specific difference in the impact of broadcasting on society, there is a risk that the Broadcasting Act differs from the content of each regulation by distinguishing between media, channel, and broadcast field, and to ensure the quality of people’s lives at the same time by seeking diverse purposes through each broadcast program, and to excessively restrict the role of broadcasting that seeks to form a fair public opinion forum. Therefore, when deliberating on whether the content of broadcasting maintains fairness and public nature, the characteristics by medium, channel, and program should be considered.

Specifically, this is as follows.

A) Radio frequencies have a public nature as a limited resource. While there exist freely accessible broadcast media and channels without paying any consideration to viewers as a result of the use of such radio frequencies by being designated without paying the consideration, there is also a broadcast media or channel through which viewers can access only by paying the consideration through entering into a contract. According to such differences in accessibility, the degree or scope of influence of broadcast media or channels on the lives, sentiments, and formation of public opinions, etc. of broadcasting media is different. Therefore, the Korea Communications Standards Commission should pay attention not to infringe upon the autonomy, expertise, and diversity of broadcast media or channels in sufficiently considering the degree or scope of influence on the lives, sentiments, and formation of public opinion. In addition, if the broadcast media or channels that broadcast the relevant broadcast program did not have a substantial influence on the lives, sentiments, and formation of public opinions of citizens, etc., and if it mainly contributes to the possible exchange of diverse opinions, it is reasonable to alleviate the objectivity and balance of the broadcast content to the fullest extent that the objective of review and balance of the broadcast content is to strengthen the objectivity and objectivity of the broadcast content.

B) According to the Broadcasting Act, a broadcasting business entity shall allow viewers to participate in decision-making with respect to planning, programming, or production of broadcast programs (Article 3); the Korean Broadcasting System shall program viewer participation programs directly produced by viewers as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (Article 69(7) and Article 51(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Broadcasting Act), and a CATV broadcasting business entity and a satellite broadcasting business entity shall also broadcast a broadcast program produced by viewers as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Science and ICT (Article 70(7)), unless there is any special reason to the contrary (Article 70(7)).

Such a broadcast program produced by viewers is introduced for the public role of broadcasting that forms a variety of social opinions reflecting a minority’s understanding and perspective. Restrictions are limited to the amount of technology, capital, and accessible information in terms of the production of viewers, and the expertise or popularity of the outcome are bound to be insufficient. These limitations are the fact that viewers with different opinions can resolve by producing and broadcasting broadcast programs from their own perspective. Therefore, a broadcast program produced by viewers are different from a broadcast program directly produced by a broadcasting business operator in terms of the degree of expectation and reliability of the broadcast content or the degree of social influence. Therefore, in examining the objectivity, fairness, and balance of a broadcast program produced by viewers, the standard of review need to be mitigated compared to the program directly produced by a broadcasting business operator.

C) Since news reports programs have a direct impact on the formation of individual opinions and social public opinion, fairness and objectivity are required as prescribed by Article 6(1) of the Broadcasting Act. On the contrary, broadcast programs (hereinafter “cultural programs”) related to culture and education, such as documentary media, knowledge, living, and cultural lectures, or entertainment programs for the purpose of cultivating national sentiments, such as drama, film, sports, etc., and diversification of leisure life (hereinafter “entertainment programs”) do not have the same impact as news reports programs. Therefore, when the Korea Communications Standards Commission examines whether a cultural program or entertainment program violates its duty to maintain the objectivity, fairness, and balance of broadcasting, it is difficult to deem that such programs have the same impact as those of news reports in forming public opinion. Accordingly, when it examines whether such a cultural program or entertainment program violates its duty to maintain the objectivity, fairness, and balance, the criteria for review that are differentiated from news reports programs should be applied in consideration of its characteristics.

C. Whether each of the instant broadcasts violated the duty to maintain objectivity, fairness and balance

1) Characteristics of each of the instant broadcasts

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, each of the instant broadcasts has the following characteristics by media, channel, and program.

A) The Plaintiff constitutes a program provider that entered into a contract for exclusive use of channels with a CATV broadcasting business operator and a satellite broadcasting business operator, and each of the instant broadcasts is a non-terrestrial broadcasting and a CATV broadcasting corresponding to pay-pay broadcasts, and are allowed to view only the viewers who paid a fixed price.

B) The Plaintiff operated a channel specializing in the bloring, and each of the instant broadcasts produced by viewers was broadcasted through a channel with low popular designation or accessibility.

C) Each of the instant broadcasts constitutes a cultural program among broadcasting fields, as a historical documentary producer (Article 2 subparag. 16 of the Broadcasting Act, and Article 50(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). Generally, the purpose of the instant broadcasts is to deliver historical facts or a specific perception and evaluation of human resources. Each of the instant broadcasts is a relatively less known fact against the President of Park Jong-hee.

2) Whether each of the instant broadcasts violates its duty to maintain objectivity, fairness and balance

A) In light of the legal principles as to the medium broadcasting the instant broadcasts, the nature of the channels operated by the Plaintiff, the degree of social influence, and the subject and content of each of the instant broadcasts, as seen earlier, and the relative application of review standards based on the characteristics of each of the media, channel, and program, each of the instant broadcasts were broadcasted through a non-terrestrial broadcast program with limited free access by viewers, and a non-terrestrial broadcast program with limited fee-charging, and a channel specializing in the amount of news, and a historical documentary program produced by viewers. As such, in examining the objectivity, fairness, and balance of the broadcast content, it is reasonable to apply relatively mitigated review standards, unlike the program or news report program directly produced by the broadcasting business entity.

B) We examine objectivity, fairness, and balance of each of the instant broadcast content based on the overall appearance that the broadcast reflects the characteristics of each of the media, channel, and program as above by the media, channel, and program as follows.

Each of the instant broadcasts is about the public figures and public interest issues, and there are conflicting historical and social evaluations as to the President Lee Jong-hee, and the debate on their friendships or achievements have a significant impact on our current life, such as the fact that there are significant differences in political opinions.

However, the broadcast content ought to be based on reliable data, barring any special circumstance, and the authenticity of the content of the broadcast should undergo sufficient investigation activities to verify facts. Not only the broadcast content of this case but also its contents are based on historical records, and the overall impression that the broadcast of this case provides to viewers, such as the content and composition of each broadcast of this case and the status and career of those subject to interview, may be deemed to be one of the historical facts existing and its premise. Meanwhile, if the broadcast of this case is intended to present an opportunity for viewers to present different opinions from the broadcast of this case, it is reasonable to view that the broadcast of this case’s historical content and its evaluation are different from the broadcast of this case’s historical content in accordance with their respective historical views. However, the broadcast of this case’s historical records and the content of the broadcast of this case’s broadcast of this case’s broadcast of this case’s broadcast of this case’s broadcast of this case’s broadcast of this case’s broadcast of this case’s broadcast of this case’s broadcast of this case’s broadcast of this case’s broadcast of this case’s broadcast of this case’s broadcast of different opinions from the Plaintiff’s historical views.

Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that each of the instant broadcasts violated the duty of maintaining objectivity, fairness and balance under the former Review Regulations because they distort the truth or reflect the opinions of the relevant parties in a balanced manner.

D. Sub-determination

The lower court determined that each of the instant broadcasts was in violation of the duty of maintaining objectivity, fairness and balance on the ground that it intentionally excluded any part that can be interpreted differently, and intentionally inserted a conclusive and indecent expression, without considering the characteristics of each of the instant broadcasts, without considering the media, channel, and program characteristics, and without introducing any positive evaluation of two former former Presidents. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the review of objectivity, fairness, balance, etc. under the former Review Regulations, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

5. Whether he/she violates the provisions concerning the respect for the deceased's honor;

A. Interpretation of the provision of the former Review Regulations concerning the respect for the deceased's reputation

1) Article 5(3) of the Broadcasting Act provides that “A broadcast shall not impair or infringe upon another person’s reputation.” Article 20 of the former Review Regulations provides that “A broadcast shall not impair the reputation of another person (including a natural person, a corporation, or any other organization)” and Article 5(2) of the same Act provides that “a broadcast shall respect the reputation of a deceased person” and Article 5(3) of the same Act provides that “where it falls under paragraphs (1) and (2), the content thereof shall be true and solely for the public interest.”

Article 308 of the Criminal Act provides that punishment shall be imposed as a damage to a deceased person’s reputation only when the “false fact” is indicated. However, Article 20(2) of the former Review Regulations provides that the deceased person’s reputation shall also be respected. In full view of the provisions of Article 20(3) of the same Act, there is room to deem that a broadcast publicly indicating a true fact constitutes a violation of a duty during the existence of a deceased person’s reputation, and such interpretation is problematic.

2) In setting the limitation between the freedom of expression and the protection of reputation, the criteria for review should be differentiated depending on whether the victim whose reputation is damaged by the expression in question is a public figure or a private figure, whether the expression concerns a public concern or a purely belongs to a private sphere, and in the case of expression as to a matter of public and social meaning, restrictions on the freedom of expression should be mitigated (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da62494, Jul. 22, 2003, etc.). In particular, when the alleged fact is a historical fact, it should be gradually protected rather than the deceased’s reputation, and it should be taken into account that it is not easy to confirm the truth as there are limits to objective materials to confirm the truth (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8564, Jan. 15, 2009).

Meanwhile, in a criminal or civil act that defames a third person’s reputation, if it is a matter of public interest and its purpose is solely for the public interest, it is not unlawful if it is proved that it is true, and it is not illegal if the actor has a reasonable ground to believe it as true even if it is not proven (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Meu29, Oct. 11, 198; 2010Da10875, Feb. 14, 2013).

3) The evaluation of historical facts or figures is based on the latter, and such evaluation is superior to various times depending on their respective values or historical views. In the event of an evaluation contrary to the foregoing, criticism against the other party is prepared, and the main evaluation of historical history is set up through such discussions, and the necessity and validity of re-evaluation is asserted through a problem raising about the evaluation of alcoholic beverages again, and the debate over the necessity and appropriateness of re-evaluation is reached. Such historical controversy cannot be avoided, and is a sound driving force that leads to the positive direction of human life and culture. Accordingly, a broadcast, the content of which is a debate on historical facts or human beings, is related to a matter of public interest, and the freedom of expression should be guaranteed wide, and even if there is a partial error or a certain degree of error, it should not be readily recognized as defamation, thereby preventing debate about historical history. However, even if the criticism or problem raising is widely recognized, it is not permissible in a broadcast or broadcast that does not distort the specific grounds.

4) In full view of the foregoing points, even if a statement of a fact detrimental to a public figure subject to historical evaluation among the broadcast content was made, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be deemed that the broadcast content violated Article 20(2) of the former Review Regulations, barring any special circumstance. Moreover, if the alleged fact concerns the public interest and is true or has considerable reason to believe that it is true, it shall not be subject to sanctions under Article 100(1) of the Broadcasting Act pursuant to Article 20(3) of the former Review Regulations.

Here, “when the objective is solely for the public interest” refers to a statement of the fact related to the public interest when objectively viewed, and an actor also expresses the fact for the public interest. If the principal objective or motive of an actor is for the public interest, even if there are other private interest purposes or motives incidental thereto, the term “actual fact” here refers to a fact that is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the content, and even if there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da34013, May 24, 2016).

In addition, defamation and insult should be dealt with separately. Defamation or indecent expressions without a statement of fact may constitute a violation of Article 27(2) of the former Review Regulations providing that “A broadcast shall not give viewers a sense of aversion due to indecent expressions, etc.” (see, e.g., Article 27(2) of the former Review Regulations, and cannot be included in violation of Article 20 of the former Review Regulations stipulating the prohibition of defamation.

B. Whether each of the instant broadcasts violated Article 20(2) of the former Review Regulations

1) 피고가 구 심의규정 제20조 제2항에 해당한다고 하여 제재사유로 삼은 내용은, 이 사건 1 방송에서 이승만 대통령이 사적인 권력욕을 채우기 위해 독립운동을 했다거나 독립투사로서의 이미지를 만들기 위해 거짓말을 하고 여대생 및 백인 여자들과 데이트를 즐기며 독립자금을 횡령한 것 등으로 묘사하고, 이 사건 2 방송에서 박정희 대통령이 동료들을 밀고해 살아남았다거나 무고한 언론인을 재판을 통해 살해하였고 일본으로부터 검은돈을 받거나 주가조작을 통해 부정한 자금을 모았으며 경제성장의 공로를 가로챈 것 등으로 묘사함과 동시에 저속한 표현을 사용하여 사자의 명예를 훼손하였다는 것이다.

2) First of all, the portion of the instant broadcast 1 using such expressions as “SNK PAK (SNK)” and the portion of the instant broadcast 2 as “SNNA PARK (SNK)” is expressed as “SNK”, and the portion of the instant broadcast 1’s photograph and snick-snick-snick-snick-snick-snick-sknick-snick-snick-snick-snick-sknick-snick-sknick-sknick-sknick-sknick-sknick-skn

3) The instant broadcast 1 cited CIA document (OS document No. 28, Oct. 28, 1948), Hobrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgr

With regard to the assessment that the instant broadcast 1 is an independent movement against the Lee Jong-man, the instant broadcast 2 seeks to raise doubts based on historical data in relation to the assessment that the Republic of Korea’s economic growth against the President Park Jong-hee was stringing, and deals with public interest issues related to public figures. Each of the instant broadcasts is aimed at debate and revaluation of historical facts and human resources. As such, each of the instant broadcasts can be deemed solely for public interest, and there is considerable reason to believe that there is any difference between the truth and the truth in that it was based on official documents of a foreign government, newspapers, relevant persons, and personal interviews with experts.

4) Therefore, each of the instant broadcasts cannot be deemed to have violated Article 20(2) of the former Review Regulations stipulating the respect respect for deceased persons, or cannot be deemed to have been subject to sanctions under Article 20(3) of the former Review Regulations.

C. Sub-decision

The lower court determined that each of the instant broadcasts violated Article 20(2) of the former Review Regulations stipulating the respect for respect for deceased persons on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence to find that the content of each of the instant broadcasts constitutes a damage to deceased persons by lowering the social and historical evaluation of the President Park Jong-hee, and that there was no sufficient reason to believe that the Plaintiff was true and that there was a reasonable reason to believe that the facts alleged by the Plaintiff were true.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 20 (2) and (3) of the former Review Regulations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, except for a dissenting opinion by Justice Jo Hee-de, Justice Kwon Soon-il, Justice Park Sang-ok, Justice Lee Ki-taik, Justice Lee In-bok, and Justice Lee Dong-won, and a concurrence with the Majority by Justice Kim Jae-hyung and Justice Kim Jong-hwan, and a concurrence with the Dissent by Justice Jo Hee-de

7. Dissenting Opinion by Justice Jo Hee-de, Justice Kwon Soon-il, Justice Park Sang-ok, Justice Lee Ki-taik, Justice Ansan-chul, and Justice Lee Dong-

A. The Majority Opinion argues that the review criteria for objectivity, fairness, and balance should be mitigated on each of the instant broadcasts, which are historical documentary evidence, inasmuch as deliberation is required considering the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program in operating the broadcast review system, and on the premise that the review criteria for objectivity, fairness, and balance should be mitigated, and on the contrary, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the review of objectivity, fairness, and balance under Articles 9(1) and (2) and 14 of the former Review Regulations and on the existence of a deceased person under Article 20(2) and (3) of the former Review Regulations, although each of the instant broadcasts was not in violation of the duty of maintaining objectivity, fairness, and balance or sanctions.

이 사건 각 제재처분의 처분사유는 이 사건 각 방송이 이승만, 박정희 대통령을 비판하였다는 것이 아니라 그 내용이 객관성·공정성·균형성을 갖추지 못하였고, 사자 명예존중 의무를 위반하였다는 것이다. 그런데 이 사건 각 방송이 근거로 내세운 자료들은 역사적 인물인 이승만, 박정희 대통령에 관한 다양하고 방대한 자료들 중 제작 의도에 부합하도록 선별된 것이었고, 선별된 자료들 중에서도 제작 의도에 부합하지 아니하는 내용은 누락하거나, 부합하는 것처럼 보이는 일부 내용만을 발췌·편집하여 마치 그것만이 유일한 사실인 것처럼 꾸몄을 뿐만 아니라, 사용된 표현 역시 저속하고 모욕적인 것으로 점철되어 있다. 따라서 이 사건 각 방송은 방송에 요구되는 최소한의 객관성·공정성·균형성을 갖추지 못하였고, 사자 명예존중 의무를 준수하지도 못하였으며 사자에 대한 모욕과 조롱이 ‘오로지 공공의 이익을 위한 것’에 포섭될 수도 없으므로, 이 사건 각 제재처분이 적법하다는 원심판결에는 아무런 잘못이 없다.

The biggest grounds for the Majority Opinion’s conclusion that the fact-finding of the lower judgment and the inclusion of the issues pertaining thereto ought to be taken into account by medium, channel, and program. However, according to such Majority Opinion, even if a broadcast of insulting and fluoring a specific historical character on the sole basis of selective and biased materials, it reaches the conclusion that any sanctions cannot be taken in accordance with the Broadcasting Act only when it takes the form of “Reculor mentor.”

The specific reasons for which the Majority Opinion cannot be agreed are as follows.

(b) Freedom and responsibility of broadcasting;

As the Majority Opinion does not deny, the freedom of broadcasting by a broadcasting business entity is distinguishable from the freedom of expression of opinion by an individual who holds a superior position that takes precedence over other fundamental rights as a mental freedom right that can be restricted only under strict standards. In addition, the freedom of expression is distinguishable from the freedom of expression of opinion by an individual, which is subject to the guarantee of the existence of a private economic and judicial organization and existence, discussion, tendency, political color, or world view, the guarantee of independent newspapers that do not undergo interference and censorship with state power, and the existence of a mutually competitive majority of newspapers for the formation of free and diverse opinions (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2005Hun-Ma165, Jun. 29, 2006).

Today, the diversification and diversification of media and channel are becoming universalized even in broadcasting, but still, it is not possible to completely overcome the limitedness of the channel of information circulation in which a small number of companies hold a medium and control the distribution of information due to its technical and economic limit. Moreover, a broadcast, which is a medium that can easily be accessed, has strong appeal since it is directly disseminated through voice and image at the same time. As such, there are special characteristics that broadcasting can be popular manipulation and increases in social dependence on broadcast media, thereby exerting strong social influence, regulation of broadcast content is still necessary to ensure social functions and responsibilities of broadcasting (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2009Hun-Ga27, Aug. 23, 2012).

The freedom of broadcasting is a subjective right enjoyed by a broadcasting business entity under the Broadcasting Act, and at the same time, an objective norm and order that performs essential functions for free formation of opinions and formation of public opinion (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2002Hun-Ba49, Dec. 18, 2003). Therefore, the theory of free market of ideas recognized in the sphere of freedom of expression cannot be comprehensively introduced into the freedom of broadcasting. This is because not only the right to freely broadcast of a broadcasting business entity, but also the interests and rights of individual citizens who are viewers, should also be taken into account. unilaterally broadcasting by a broadcasting business entity selected only one opinion is not only a broadcast for the viewers, but also a broadcast for the broadcasting business entity.

In light of the characteristics of broadcasting, the Broadcasting Act provides for a follow-up deliberation of the broadcast content under the Broadcasting Act to realize the public responsibility of broadcasting, and provides for the following: (a) respect for the dignity and value of human beings and the basic democratic order; (b) contribute to the unity of the people to the development of the nation and the formation of democratic public opinion; and (c) not to encourage conflicts between regions, generations, classes, and gender; and (d) not to impair others’ honor or infringe upon their rights (Articles 5 and 6). The Broadcasting Act provides for a follow-up deliberation of the broadcast content in order to realize the public responsibility of broadcasting; and (c) the objective order formulated by the legislators to serve for the formation of democratic will of the people.

As long as a broadcasting business entity including the Plaintiff receives protection and support under the Broadcasting Act, it should fulfill the public responsibilities granted by the Broadcasting Act. If such a broadcasting business entity cannot consent to the regulation under the laws and regulations, it would be able to enjoy broad freedom of expression by selecting a more free medium beyond the institution’s broadcast.

(c) The meaning of review based on the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program;

1) The Majority Opinion, on the premise that the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program should be considered in the application of the former Review Regulations. Since each of the instant broadcasts is a non-terrestrial broadcast and a historical documentary media produced by viewers with low accessibility, it means that the objectivity, fairness, and balance should be examined according to relatively mitigated review criteria compared to a terrestrial broadcast or a broadcast program produced by a broadcasting business entity, and the relaxation of review criteria means that the broadcast content violates the duty to maintain objectivity, fairness, and balance under the Review Regulations. Each of the instant broadcasts as a historical documentary media is inevitable to intervene as a producer’s subjective point of view, and the producer puts considerable effort to verify facts based on historical records, and it is intended to prepare diverse forms of public opinions by raising questions on historical facts and interpretation of the factual status of which is in fact liquor, and complies with the duty to maintain objectivity, fairness, and impartiality, and thus, the lower court failed to comply with the duty to comply with each of the instant broadcasts, without complying with the obligation to comply with each of the instant broadcast media and each of the instant broadcasts.

2) Administrative laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for an indivative administrative disposition, must be strictly interpreted and applied, and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the other party to the administrative disposition. In a case where a teleological interpretation is permitted taking into account the legislative intent and purpose of such administrative laws and regulations, it shall not go beyond the ordinary meaning of the language and text (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du47686, Nov. 24, 2016). The defendant who asserts the legality of the disposition bears the burden of proving the legitimacy of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1505, Sept. 8, 201, etc.) is the consistent attitude of the Supreme Court.

However, if the meaning of the term “detailedly mitigated criteria for review” used by the Majority Opinion ought to be strictly recognized as a violation of the duty to maintain objectivity, fairness and balance, it seems that the established legal doctrine of the Supreme Court, which is the principle of strict interpretation of the law on the basis of aggressive administrative disposition, is nothing more than a reflection of the established legal doctrine of the Supreme Court. In this case, which discusses whether the disposition of an administrative agency is appropriate, the practical meaning of the “alleviated criteria for review” as alleged by the Majority Opinion in the instant case ought to be strengthened the degree of the Defendant’s burden of proof as to the existence of the reason for disposition or take into account the exercise of discretionary power when determining the level of disciplinary disposition. Therefore, even if the concept of “alleviated criteria for review” is not newly presented, its purpose can be sufficiently reflected in the established legal doctrine of revocation lawsuit, and the first instance court and the lower court

The Majority Opinion argues that there is no ground for the disposition of each of the sanctions in this case by applying the mitigated standard of review. However, as long as there is no substance of the relaxed standard of review and there is no independent meaning, the core of a broadcast deliberation in accordance with the logic presented by the Majority Opinion is whether the relaxed standard of review is applied to any medium, channel, and program.

The Majority Opinion presents the influence of media, viewers’ participation programs, and cultural and entertainment programs as a standard for determining whether relaxed criteria for review are applied. However, only the simple criteria related to each of the instant broadcasts do not provide any explanation as to what is specific subject to relaxed criteria for review.

Furthermore, according to the Majority Opinion’s conclusion, if each of the instant broadcasts is broadcasted on the same medium or channel as the Plaintiff, it is evaluated that the objectivity, fairness, and balance has been complied with, and if broadcast is broadcast on a terrestrial broadcast with a large influence, it is deemed that the obligation to maintain objectivity, fairness, and balance has been violated. This differs depending on the influence of a specific medium, channel, and program, and thus, is contrary to the legal administrative principles required by the Constitution, which allow and justify arbitrary dispositions by administrative agencies.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, in full view of the specific contents, composition, and editing form of each of the instant broadcasts, the grounds for each of the instant sanctions exist, and the obligation to maintain objectivity, fairness, and balance exists, and the relevant broadcasts are not exempted even if they were engaged in historical documentary format. In light of the intent of planning each of the instant broadcasts and the intent of participating programs, even if considering the institutional purport of the program, the lower court clearly stated that each of the instant sanctions is lawful, and thus, contrary to the pointed out by the Majority Opinion, the lower court determined the legality of each of the instant sanctions by taking into account the characteristics of each media, channel, and program.

In addition, according to Article 100(1) and (3) of the Broadcasting Act, in a case where the content of a broadcast violates the deliberation rules, a measure of heavy sanctions such as correction, revision, or suspension of the relevant broadcast program, disciplinary action against persons in charge of broadcast programming and persons related to the relevant broadcast program, as well as the imposition of a penalty surcharge may be ordered. Each of the instant sanctions is merely a disciplinary measure and warning against the relevant persons, and thus, a lower level of sanctions. If each of the instant sanctions was transmitted from a terrestrial broadcast, the degree of sanctions is much much excessive. As such, the Defendant’s determination of the level of sanctions against the Plaintiff, which reflects the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program.

In addition, it is difficult to find out how different criteria for review should be applied in consideration of the characteristics of each of the instant broadcasts, and there is no way to apply relatively mitigated criteria for review.

Ultimately, an examination in accordance with a relatively relaxed standard of review referred to in the Majority Opinion cannot be accepted because it goes against the rule of law. Even if so, the lower court determined that there existed grounds for a disposition taking into account the characteristics of media, channel, and program, and that the level of sanctions also appears to have been determined in consideration of these characteristics. If the Majority Opinion’s logic is followed, it is difficult to say that any administrative sanction cannot be taken even in cases where objectivity, fairness, and balance is lost, such as each broadcast of this case, even if it is obvious that the content of each medium, channel, and program should be considered.

3) The Majority Opinion does not present any standards with which a criminal can easily understand the application of differentiated review criteria from news reports programs in light of the characteristics of media, channel, and program according to what criteria and classification. If a broadcast of viewers participating in a channel with low accessibility among satellite broadcasting and CATV broadcasting is a historical documentary media that provides the data prepared by a newspaper engineer or a foreign government agency, the Majority Opinion does not allow sanctions even if it violates Articles 5 and 6 of the Broadcasting Act.

In particular, the Majority emphasizes the fact that each of the instant broadcasts is a program produced by viewers as one of the reasons for applying the specific criteria for review, taking into account the characteristics of each of the instant broadcasts. However, each of the instant broadcasts does not simply produce a simple program by an individual viewer, but is a pro rata program produced by a third party with specialized production equipment and systems through a considerable level of editing using various computer graphics. The Majority also recognizes that each of the instant broadcasts has put considerable effort into a producer to confirm facts from a planning to a broadcast. Nevertheless, without considering the substance of each of the instant broadcasts, the Majority granted a criminal charge book by lowering the level of the broadcast to the degree that individual viewers freely present their opinions. Even if each of the instant broadcasts is a viewer participation program, the Plaintiff is not a self-production of a program produced by a third party, but rather a third party is not liable for a program produced by a third party, and thus, the Plaintiff is not liable for the producer’s violation of the Broadcasting Act. The Plaintiff’s selection of a third party’s freedom to broadcast program should not change the content of the broadcast program.

In addition, as pointed out in the Majority Opinion, documentary entertainment is a program aimed at improving the people’s culture and education. The people who viewed historical documentary evidence that shows the materials prepared by newspaper articles or foreign state agencies with the public’s contributions and that shows that the contents of the program are more true than a simple news report program in any aspect. The obligation to observe objectivity, fairness and balance required for historical documentary evidence and to respect the deceased’s reputation cannot be seen as equal to that of a simple entertainment program, drama, film, or sports.

Therefore, even if the characteristics of each of the instant broadcasts are based on media, channel, and program characteristics, the conclusion that the application of scarfly mitigated review criteria to each of the instant broadcasts is an arbitrary interpretation that does not comply with the intent of the Broadcasting Act.

4) Even if it is reasonable to reverse the judgment of the court of final appeal on the grounds that the content of each of the instant broadcasts, which was recognized by the court of final appeal, was erroneous in the inclusion of the indefinite concept through fact-finding in the court of final appeal, it should present the grounds for inclusion and interpretation of the facts recognized by the court of final appeal differently from the court of final appeal. The grounds recognized otherwise by the court below concerning whether the content of each of the instant broadcasts conforms to the truth or conforms to the truth should be explained by considering various facts and circumstances revealed during the fact-finding process. However, the Majority Opinion, instead of explaining how each of the instant broadcasts was maintained in a manner of maintaining objectivity, fairness, and balance and fulfilling the duty of respect for the reputation of the deceased, it was concluded that each of the instant broadcasts complies with the duty of deliberation of the court of final appeal. This conclusion is merely a conclusion that each of the instant broadcasts complies with the duty of deliberation of the former Act.

5) The Majority Opinion determined that the relaxed review criteria for each of the instant broadcasts ought to be applied as one of the important criteria for the influence of broadcasts. However, considering the current broadcasting environment where the viewing rate and friendliness of programs broadcasted in a specific satellite broadcasting and CATV broadcasting are higher than the programs of terrestrial broadcasts, the Majority Opinion does not present any answer to what side the review criteria should be more mitigated among the programs of cable broadcasting or general programming and the programs of terrestrial broadcasting with low viewing rate, and the programs with low viewing rate. As such, the Majority Opinion’s conclusion that the review criteria for each of the instant broadcasts ought to be applied without any specific explanation as to why and how the review criteria of review regulations should vary by broadcasting business operators, channels, and programs, may be deemed as infringing the rights of broadcasting business operators by arbitrarily applying the former review regulations without reasonable grounds.

6) In view of the fact that each of the instant broadcasts is a viewer production program, the Majority Opinion determined that the opportunity for viewers with other opinions to present various conflicting opinions through the same viewer production program specialized channel as the Plaintiff may be maintained to maintain fairness and balance.

However, there is no evidence that the Plaintiff, who has the right to broadcast programming, had broadcast programs composed of friendly contents to the President of Park Jong-hee, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that such opportunity has been granted or may be given to viewers with different opinions. Therefore, the majority opinion that the fairness and balance has been complied with in terms of the opportunity for participation is only based on the good reasons.

In addition, in determining the observance of the obligation to maintain the balance of each of the instant broadcasts, the circumstance that there is an opportunity to broadcast the programs having conflicting opinions through the other viewers’ specialized channels that are not the Plaintiff cannot serve as the basis for maintaining the balance. This is because the balance is to be maintained within a specific broadcast program. If the logic is the same as the Majority Opinion, in the broadcasting environment where media and channels are diversified and diversely changed broadcasting channels, it reaches the conclusion that the balance is maintained since all broadcasting channels exist, and therefore, the content of the former Review Regulations that prescribe the obligation to maintain the balance of broadcasting does not have any normative power.

7) Even if the characteristics of each of the instant broadcasts should be considered in accordance with the Majority Opinion, each of the instant broadcasts was in violation of objectivity, balance, and fairness as seen below, and breached the duty of respect for deceased persons’ honor.

D. Contents of each of the instant broadcasts

1) Each of the instant sanctions is subject to deliberation by the Korea Communications Standards Commission that violates the duty of objectivity, fairness, balance and respect for reputation of the deceased. This is an area of discretion of the Korea Communications Standards Commission independent from outside with expertise and expertise. In particular, each of the instant sanctions among the broadcast content as cited by the court of first instance as invoked by the court below, in light of the following relevant contents of each of the instant sanctions, it cannot be deemed that each of the instant sanctions was in violation of the former Review Regulations or excessive.

2) The content of the instant broadcast 1

A) The President Lee Man-man, who received a master’s degree from a Dold University and broadcasted an interview with Nonparty 1 professor “I am Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol? Dol Dol Dol

B) Along with an interview held by the President Lee Man-man, citing an interview, the term “the words of Lee Man-man are equally the same as those of Japan's colonial modernism. If we look at only of the instant case, he inserted the inside of the term “the classical friendliness that Korea propaganda and attends entirely as it does not need to be independent of the Republic of Korea.”

C) In broadcasting the content that only Hanman had money as collateral for the dormitory construction fund for female students and the property of the National Assembly, and had a money for the entire sale of the property of the National Assembly, the only Hanman broadcasted that Hanman had been equipped with an equal money, and that he was in the shape that he was a non-permanentist. To practice love, he mobilized Hanman to a terrorist terrorist and mobilized a terrorist terrorist and sponsed the people meeting. He started to run a scam and flacing me. this is the troke of the master’s pitc. This is the Hah, this is the troke of the master’s pitc.). With regard to the filing of a complaint against the representatives of the National Assembly which brought the financial problem, the Hanman had inserted the national caption called “Irar BEAYAYER, Lee Sabls Clamor, and the Korean-national caption.”

D) With respect to the violation of the Mannn Law, Isnman and Non-Party 2’s photographed with a parody, and broadcasted the rash called “Iskn if Isk scam scamscams and travels and crebs, I am scam in the highest level Lescam in the highest level hotel, and I am scam in the highest level hotel. I am approaching scams, I am the highest level of meals as 2 years old. I am the U.S. investigators were judged to be a bad scam, and I complained of it.”

E) Regarding the independence movement strategy of the President Lee Man-man, broadcast the content of “I will see why it will give the alternative strategy? The reason is also related to money?” while speaking on the factors of the provisional government for Lee Man-man, the content of “I can not work together with the low struous pricing.”

3) The content of the instant broadcast 2

A) The broadcast 2 of this case, which analyzes the external activities of the President Park Jong-hee and the cause of the economic growth of Korea through a press report, etc. reported to the U.S. Congress in 1978, broadcasted that “The middle class of Korea was believed by Park Jong-hee to create the foundation of Han River by presenting the export-led figure strategy, but Park Jong-hee did not have a timely presentation of the export-led figure strategy,” citing the U.S. confidential documents whose secrets were released, Korea modified by the export-state strategy policy of the U.S.....A. In this intermediate of the broadcast, “Yhee-hee was cut back before the power of the U.S... forces.” After all, Park Jong-hee, who was in need of support from the public, he was fully kneed in front of the power of the U.S., and who was subject to the U.S. core economic development plan and its active intervention in the export-in strategy.”

B) “SNAKE PAK (SNF)” was expressed as a caption, when Park Jong-hee was fluored in the Japanese colonial era. After the piracy, he was arrested on the part of the Korean people. He was fully tightly killed brut and hidden his title. For the instant reason, the U.S. forces broadcast the rash of “SNek Park” with the same human nature as snick snick. For the instant reason, the U.S. forces expressed “SNAK PAK” as a caption.

C) After making a request for assistance in Japan, the President Park Jong-hee stated that “I will do so in this way, I will see the thickness?” to Nonparty 3 who had trained soldiers at the time of Japan, and “I have left Japan’s name rehabilitation branch at the time of revolution. I have followed the Japan’s name rehabilitation branch at the time of revolution. I have followed the Japan’s name rehabilitation branch. I have followed the Japan’s name rehabilitation branch. I have followed the Japan’s name rehabilitation branch.” Accordingly, Japan began to check Park Jong-hee’s regime in order for Japan to build Korea as a Japan’s economic food, and as a result, Korea broadcast the content that I would go into Japan’s ties.

D) Nonparty 4, the Cho Jong-hee’s Cho Jong-hee’s Cho Jong-hee’s Cho-hee’s Cho-hee, collected unlawful political funds through a stock price manipulation, and paid to Park Jong-hee all, and broadcasted that Park Jong-hee was aware of his monetary reform failure, and “The monetary reform of Park Jong-hee was fluent so as to make it difficult for him to believe.”

4) As discussed in each of the instant broadcasts, as the materials of each of the instant broadcasts are not objective, the content of the broadcasts itself did not fit the facts, and thus violated the obligation of the customer, and the fairness and balance of the broadcasts were not complied with as a broadcast which did not introduce any opinions contrary to the above, and as a broadcast is an insulting expression by insulting a person, the content was also in violation of the obligation of respect for a deceased person’s reputation, and such insulting expression cannot be deemed to conform to the public interest.

E. Violation of guest duty

1) The Majority Opinion states that the producers of each of the instant broadcasts, a historical documentary, input a considerable effort to verify facts, and the content thereof are based on historical materials, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the producers of the instant broadcasts, a historical documentary document, committed a violation of the entertainment duty by either distorting facts related to the President Park Jong-hee or broadcasting inaccurate contents without based on objective facts that could be proven.

2) The absolute and permanent objectivity in history does not necessarily depend on the criteria for determining any fixed and irregular base existing in the present. Historical history selects and arrange past facts in accordance with the criteria reflecting the awareness and values of the present society and reality. Since historical facts pursued by historical history are not objectively existing in itself, it is inevitable to rely on historical records that reveal the past. In other words, even if the historical history is based on facts, it is based on the fact selected in accordance with a series of judgments widely approved among the work of various historical history. Since historical facts were prepared to be cut off by selecting and recording, it should not be readily concluded that what content is stated in material, such as books or press reports, and that the historical facts are not immediately historical facts.

Therefore, if a broadcasting business operator broadcasts by extracting some of the materials deemed consistent with the intent of production, and concluding that it is an objective historical fact, the viewers may be mistaken or confused with a historical fact that is not room for the theoretical basis, as it goes beyond the public responsibility of the broadcasting business operator, and it is inevitable to view only the freedom of the broadcasting business operator as smoking.

3) Each of the instant broadcasts broadcasted that the producer’s selective movement and economic development of the President Park Jong-hee did not exist in order to assert that there was no achievements of the President Lee Jong-hee’s independent movement and economic development, as well as that of the materials selected by him. Furthermore, the translation of materials based on each of the instant broadcasts is deemed to distort the fact by citing and citing only some expressions consistent with the intent of production without any explanation of the entire context of the materials. The materials asserted by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff fulfilled his duty of investigation cannot be deemed to have been objectively objective or verified as historical materials during that period. Furthermore, the Plaintiff used only those materials suspected of objectivity, which are favorable to the President Park Jong-hee, omitted and extracted only parts consistent with the intent of editing. In addition, in light of the current level of English use and the degree of effort necessary for accurate translation, the translation of materials based on each of the instant broadcasts is deemed to have distorted the fact by pretending the fact.

Each of the instant broadcasts, as seen in the following several specific examples, did not accurately broadcast the facts with respect to the President Park Jong-hee as far as possible, as possible, but rather distort the facts and evaluations from its own perspective and distort the historical point of view or stimulatedly distort the historical figures.

A) The instant broadcast 1 cited the Ethical 1 through Ethical 1 to Oct. 16, 1916, the title “Hwaiian Galter”, and denied that “Arhman’s doctor denies “a half-day ideology” at one school. There is no thought that there is criticism in our school. Moreover, there is no think that there would be half-day sentiment. Japanese newspapers will not mislead Japan.” Based on this, the instant broadcast expressed that “I will have a favorable view against Japan.” On the basis of the broadcast, I expressed that I would like to say that I would like to be a person who has a favorable view against Japan.”

However, even according to the translation submitted by the Plaintiff to the Supreme Court during the course of the final appeal, this part of the original text does not cover all the matters related to the rebuttal in our schools. Rather, I educate all humanity. Since the U.S. students, who are the United States of our schools, are teachers in accordance with the principles of the Dolology at least, and have experience in international society, I do not teach that they oppose race or a specific country. I do not agree with any kind of opinion among the two. There is no opposite opinion among them, and any opposite name to Korean people, regardless of Japanese newspapers or newspapers, shall not be published. Our funds should be given to our people. The educational and religious efforts to promote the welfare and understanding of our nation should not be considered as the counter-day.”

In order to emphasize the fact that the Republic of Korea and Japan are educating the spirit of a particular nation in the immigration society without excluding the hostile mind against a specific nation in the immigration society, this interview distorted the fact that only the President of the Republic of Korea was friendly in Japan or even malicious friendly in fact, and in the article, “one citizen of Korea as a single nation must be forgotten that he/she has the right to life, the right to freedom, and the right to pursue happiness,” as in the article, he/she intentionally omitted part of the materials that may be interpreted differently, and intentionally extracted only part of the materials that correspond to the intention of production, which is a historical fact.

B) On October 28, 1948, the instant broadcast 1 inserted an internal movement into the purport that “IA document of the United States was an independent movement to take a private desire for power. I sought this objective and do not have any means to take one’s own initiative,” citing the part that “IA document of the United States of America was inserted to the effect that IA document of this case is an independent movement which may only be known by the President of the Republic of Korea.”

However, this part of the original text recognized by the first instance court seems to mean the best interest of Korea as one of its own. At least in its mental sense, he had followed himself in the Korean independent movement with the ultimate objective of directly controlling the country. In pursuing this goal, he did not seem to be the books of conscience against any group that he intended to use for his own well-being, but the exception for attention was always refused to deal with the public figures. This part of the original text explains that only the deceased was the symbol of anti-publicism in the mind of the Republic of Korea. In addition, this part of this part may be translated as follows: “There was no distance between the President and the City/Do, even if he intended to depicate or depicate its own way to control the country.” The CA document of the United States, except as the premise that the CA document of this case did not appear to be an independent means of self-defense for the purpose of self-defense and evaluation of the contents of his own personal character as well as the content of the CA document of this case.”

C) The instant broadcast 1 broadcasted the instant broadcast to the effect that “The U.S. investigators were judged to be acting as a virtue of acting in good faith,” and that “The U.S. investigators subsequently distorted and distorted the facts in a negative direction to the President, contrary to the actual data, even if they were to have been punished when they were punished with women who were not married.”

D) In addition, the instant broadcast 2 deals with the initial economic development of the President Park Jong-hee, after the military base of May 16th, to the effect that Park Jong-hee was not the main role of economic growth by the President of the Republic of Korea based on the press report mainly on the press report.

The press reports do not intend to understand the objective cause, process, etc. of Korea’s economic growth. As such, it cannot be evaluated on a conclusive basis on the basis of only this data. Furthermore, the press reports on the press report, even though there were parts that can be evaluated differently, such as the driving force of rapid economic growth in Korea, the citizens who were faced with the driving force of rapid economic growth in Korea, the effective implementation of the government, and the cooperation between the United States and Korea, were considered as the cause of production intent, and only the parts that correspond to the intention of production are historical facts, were extracted, and the fact that the President Park Jong-hee intentionally excluded the construction of chemical industry and social infrastructure against the United States.

4) For such reasons, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to whether the Plaintiff violated objectivity or by broadcasting incorrect contents without distort facts related to the President Park Jong-hee or on the basis of objective facts that could be proven, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to whether there was a violation of the duty of entertainment under the former Review Regulations, or by violating the rules of evidence.

F. Violation of fairness and balance

1) The Majority Opinion, like each of the instant broadcasts, deemed that there is no need to provide mechanical opportunities to an extent equivalent to various opinions or perspectives in the case of historical documentary evidence raising a reasonable level of doubts as to the interpretation of a reasonable level of historical fact and interpretation as to the instant broadcasts, and that the opportunity to access other opinions is guaranteed to viewers, thereby complying with fairness and balance.

2) Unlike the majority opinion, the lower court did not have determined that it is necessary to have the same level of mechanicality as broadcast broadcast or news report broadcast for diverse opinions or perspectives as indicated in the majority opinion.

The term “fairness” in a broadcast under Article 9(2) of the former Review Regulations means an attitude that does not treat the parties concerned fairly by delivering a variety of views or opinions so that the diversity of opinions can be ensured with respect to social issues or matters of profound conflict of interests subject to broadcast. The term “fairness” in the latter part of the same paragraph means the equitable treatment of the parties concerned by providing the parties concerned with an opportunity of substantial equality, taking into account the social influence of the parties concerned or the persons subject to broadcast, the nature of the case, the nature of the broadcast program, etc., rather than the quantitative balance that the parties concerned should take into account the social impact of the parties concerned or the persons concerned, the nature of the case, the nature of the broadcast program, etc. The balance does not require a quantitative and formal balance that the equal broadcasting time and proportion should be made to the positions of the opposing parties. If a substantial equal opportunity has been provided with respect to conflicting positions based on a social agreed value and a common understanding, the balance in the broadcast may be recognized.

However, each of the instant broadcasts did not introduce any opinion different from the production intent. The reasoning for the lower court to determine that each of the instant broadcasts violated fairness and balance is not because each of the instant broadcasts did not take a specific point of view but did not have diversity in view of the relevant broadcasts.

3) A role that can determine what “epidemic facts” can be, and only a specific person, such as the Plaintiff or the producer of each of the instant broadcasts, and a specific person, such as the Plaintiff or the producer of each of the instant broadcasts, cannot be monopolyed by only us. As recognized by the Majority Opinion, this is an area where individual subjective value judgment of the citizens can be involved. As such, a broadcasting business entity or its producer who intends to produce and broadcast historical documentary evidence, concurrently reflects the possibility of his or her errors, as well as the demand for fairness and balance that a variety of views should be introduced within a single program. However, each of the instant broadcasts only include criticism and harassment with respect to a specific person, but also does not take account of the fairness and balance. If a broadcasting business entity is not an individual media operator, it is not a minimum public responsibility that should be observed under the Broadcasting Act.

G. Violation of the duty of respect for deceased persons

1) In interpreting Article 20(2) and (3) of the former Review Regulations, the Majority Opinion borrows the legal doctrine on the elements of a private person’s defamation under Article 308 of the Criminal Act and the grounds for excluding illegality.

2) However, Article 20(2) of the former Review Regulations is not a provision on administrative punishment, but a compulsory provision that is the subject of administrative sanctions. Each of the instant sanctions is against the Plaintiff, a broadcasting business entity, who is not a supervisory entity that produces each of the instant broadcasts or a producer, but bears an obligation to respect the reputation of a dead person under the Broadcasting Act. Therefore, without a producer’s intent to determine whether the content of each of the instant broadcasts is true and is solely about the public interest.

Inasmuch as sanctions against violations of administrative laws are sanctions imposed based on the objective fact of violation of administrative laws in order to achieve administrative purposes, it is not a real offender, but a person prescribed as a person in charge of legal affairs. Barring special circumstances, sanctions may be imposed without intention or negligence on a violator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Du1297, May 10, 2012; 2014Du8773, May 11, 2017).

3) Meanwhile, it is sufficient to prove a high probability that there was a fact in a civil lawsuit or administrative litigation, rather than a natural scientific proof that the proof of fact ought to be without doubt. Barring special circumstances, it is sufficient to prove a high level of probability that there was a fact in light of the empirical rule, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da6755, Oct. 28, 2010). The responsibility and criminal liability for breach of administrative laws and regulations are different principles in terms of guidance ideology, burden of proof, degree of proof, etc., and thus, inasmuch as the same principle applies to the supervisory agent that produced each of the of the instant broadcasts of this case or producer’s reputation, even if it is difficult to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, such circumstance alone does not deny the existence of sanctions in an administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Du74702, Apr. 12, 2018).

Of course, when the expression is related to the political ideology of a public existence, the political ideology of the existence of the expression is likely to affect the reputation of the State, and thus, the political ideology of the existence of the expression is more thoroughly disclosed and verified, and as long as there is any doubt or doubt as possible, the question raising ought to be permitted and the public debate should be conducted. It is democratic to ensure that the raising of suspicion against it should not be obstructed in the name of the protection of the reputation of the public existence, and that it may be attitudeed in the process of competition through debate against the pros and cons (Supreme Court Decision 200Da37524, 37531 Decided January 22, 2002).

However, the deceased person is not allowed to go to the head of such debate. In this sense, Article 20 (2) and (3) of the former Review Regulations provide that the deceased person's honor should be respected unless the content is true and not solely for the public interest.

4) Examining the following circumstances along with the overall appearance of each of the instant broadcasts to viewers in light of the relevant statutes and legal principles, the fact or comment that the Defendant used as sanctions in each of the instant broadcasts was a historical figure, and that the content of each of the instant broadcasts impairs the reputation of the President Park Jong-hee. It cannot be deemed that the content of each of the instant broadcasts was true and is solely for the public interest.

It is reasonable to view that the broadcast content of this case is mainly produced by the malicious purpose or motive to impair the personality of an individual of scarcitys, regardless of the public interest, by extracting only the part corresponding to the intention of production, and broadcasting as if it were historical facts. This is because it is deemed that the content of each of the instant broadcasts was produced by the malicious purpose or motive to impair the personality of the individual of scarcitys, and that it is manifestly lost reasonableness as it is a malicious or extremely rush attack

A) The instant broadcast 1, in line with the producer’s intent, has extracted and epiced part of the entire feed, and added to the malicious trend to the producer’s intention, has undermined the reputation of the deceased by expressing the president “SaY ZYOY, HLAY, HLOY, HL Ha, HH Ha, Hahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

As seen earlier, it is difficult to see the content of the instant broadcast 1 as true. Therefore, without examining whether the content of the instant broadcast 1 constitutes “the benefit of the aged and the public”, the Plaintiff violated the duty of respect for the deceased under Article 20(2) of the former Review Regulations.

나) 이 사건 2 방송은 박정희 대통령을 ‘SNAKE PARK’이라고 표현하였고, 미국의 입장에서 작성되어 객관적이라고 볼 수 없는 프레이저 보고서 등에 근거하여 박정희 대통령의 경제개발 업적을 폄훼하였고, 박정희 대통령이 동료를 밀고해서 살아남았다거나, 무고한 언론인을 재판을 통해 살해하였다거나, 일본으로부터 부정한 돈을 받았다거나, 주가조작을 통해 부정한 자금을 모았다거나 경제성장의 공로를 가로챘다는 등의 허위사실을 적시함으로써 사자 명예존중 의무를 위반하였다.

5) Article 20(3) of the former Review Regulations provides that if the content of the broadcast is true and solely for the public interest, the obligation of respect for reputation shall not be imposed on the broadcast. In order to apply Article 20(3) of the former Review Regulations, the content of each broadcast of this case must be true. However, as seen earlier, the content of each broadcast of this case cannot be viewed as a fact because it violated the objective obligation, and it cannot be seen as a fact as being in violation of the objective obligation. Moreover, it cannot be said that the content of each broadcast of this case cannot be seen as a “actual fact” with the content of insult and sexual harassment, and it cannot be evaluated

Therefore, since Article 20(3) of the former Review Regulations cannot be applied, there is a reason to impose a disposition that violates the duty of respect for the deceased under Article 20(2) of the former Review Regulations.

6) The Majority Opinion states that Article 27(2) of the former Review Regulations can only be applied to each of the instant broadcasts because they constitute indecent expressions.

However, each of the instant broadcasts is an infringement on another person’s fundamental rights by using indecent expressions which are bound to be considered as a insult and sexual harassment for a specific person. This is a matter to which Article 20(2) of the former Review Regulations stipulated under the title “Prohibition of Infringement of Rights” is applicable. It is not a matter to which Article 27(2) of the former Review Regulations stipulating that an unspecified number of people or a broadcast content itself is indecent.

H. Whether the discretionary authority of each of the instant sanctions is deviates or abused

In light of the Plaintiff’s content and degree of violation, the level of each of the sanctions of this case, and the degree of public interest infringed upon by each of the sanctions of this case, etc., the Defendant’s public interest to be achieved by each of the sanctions of this case is much more than that of the Plaintiff’s freedom of broadcasting, etc. which is limited thereby, and thus, it is difficult to deem that each of the sanctions of this case is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.

I. Conclusion

1) As to whether each of the instant broadcasts was a genuine independent movement by the President of the Republic of Korea, the Majority Opinion assumes that, on the basis of historical data as to whether Park Jong-hee had a leading role in the economic growth of Korea, the purpose is to raise questions on the alcoholic perspective. However, even once viewed each of the instant broadcasts, the contents irrelevant to historical evaluation, such as the private life of the President of the Park Jong-hee, are overall over the program, and the portion pointing out political and political errors is also scarving through the visual and insulting expressions and screen composition. Each of the instant broadcasts was selected and extracted from materials that are difficult to be seen as objective. The materials were translated beyond the possibility of misunderstanding that may be permitted, and were produced and broadcasted in line with the direction of the producer’s production and editing, by using an interview with experts or scholars selected according to a specific direction.

In addition, the Majority Opinion’s argument to the effect that the review criteria should be mitigated in light of the purpose of each of the instant broadcasts is also difficult to agree. It cannot be deemed that it is the liquor of our society to protect the political and policy errors of the president of Park Jong-hee. Thus, the liquor time for the Plaintiff to raise questions can only be seen as pertaining to the area irrelevant to the historical assessment, such as the transfer of each of the instant broadcasts and the privacy of the President Park Jong-hee. Each of the instant broadcasts calls for a stimulious stimulious stimulsa, which is a stituous expression. This is merely a proper historical documentary stimuls, and cannot be said to be a proper historical documentary stimuls.

2) The broadcast of this case does not intend to deliver a balanced historical fact as a historical documentary to viewers, but is merely consistent with the Plaintiff’s intent for booming and booming the president and booming the President. There are not many persons who raise an objection to the proposition that criticism on the political acts or policies of historical figures is needed for the future historical development. The Defendant did not impose each sanctions of this case on the grounds that criticism on the policies or political activities of the President of Park Jong-hee was the subject of each of the instant broadcasts. Unlike the purpose of each of the instant broadcasts, the content of each of the instant broadcasts was nothing more than booming and scaring the President of Park Jong-hee, and thus lose objectivity, fairness, and balance, and that it did not comply with the duty of reputation respect, each of the instant sanctions was imposed on each of the instant broadcasts.

3) Therefore, the lower court’s determination that the instant disposition was lawful is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, we express our concurrence with the Majority Opinion.

8. Concurrence with the Majority by Justice Kim Jae-hyung

In a case where a variety of statutory provisions can be interpreted, in principle, in light of the language, structure, purpose, and legislative background of the statutory provisions, the constitutional consistency to remove the unconstitutionality to the extent possible should be interpreted, and the interpretation should not be easily determined solely on the ground that there are unconstitutional elements during the process of interpretation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du43707, Feb. 18, 2016). In a case where a situation unexpected at the time of legislation occurred after the enactment of a law and a new environment results contrary to the Constitution if it is applied to the new environment, the result of the interpretation to remove such unconstitutional elements ought to be adopted.

Although the broadcast review system itself cannot be deemed as unconstitutional, if the provisions on broadcast review are applied to a new type of broadcast media, if unconstitutional results arise, it shall be interpreted in the direction of removing them to the greatest extent possible. The current broadcast review system is operated in a way that restricts the basic rights of broadcasting business entities by exercising public authority, such as administrative sanctions, on the grounds that the broadcast content, which is an administrative agency, goes against the criteria for deliberation. However, in a democratic society, the expression act, in particular, may infringe on the freedom of expression, and ultimately, it is desirable to restrict the freedom of expression. The specific reasons are as follows.

A. In full view of the legislative history and purport of the broadcast review system, as well as the need for the freedom of broadcast and the regulation of broadcast under the Constitution, the broadcast laws and regulations providing the current broadcast review system are mainly designed to regulate broadcast programs through terrestrial broadcasts, and thus, it should be interpreted that other broadcast media should be applied more strictly according to more strict standards.

1) The Broadcasting Act provides that the Korea Communications Standards Commission shall deliberate and decide on whether the contents of a broadcast maintain impartiality and public nature and observe public responsibilities (Article 32), and the Korea Communications Standards Commission shall establish and publicly announce deliberation rules on the impartiality and public nature of broadcasts (Article 33). The Korea Communications Commission may determine sanctions, etc. in cases where it deems the contents of a broadcast violate the deliberation rules. Accordingly, the Korea Communications Commission may order sanctions, such as correction, revision, or suspension of the relevant broadcast program, disciplinary action against persons in charge of broadcast programming and persons related to the relevant broadcast program, as well as penalty surcharges (Article 10(1) of the Broadcasting Act; Article 25(1) and (3) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Korea Communications Commission. As such, the Broadcasting Act adopts the national deliberation system on the contents of a broadcast so that the Korea Communications Commission may deliberate on the impartiality and public nature of broadcasts and accordingly take administrative sanctions against a broadcasting business entity.

2) At the time of the first enactment of the Broadcasting Act on December 16, 1963, there was no provision on the public responsibility of broadcasting. However, on December 31, 1980, the Act on Registration of Newspapers, Communications, Etc., the Press Ethics Committee Act, and the Framework Act on Press was repealed, and the provisions on the public responsibility of broadcasting (Article 3) and the public nature of broadcasting (Article 31) were introduced. The reason is that the media have a profound influence on all areas of the State, society, and individuals, so it was to prepare an institutional device that implements the public responsibility and strengthen the responsibility of the media within the framework of the democratic fundamental order. The second enactment of the Broadcasting Act was amended to abolish the Framework Act on Press on November 28, 1987, and secondly, the provisions on fairness and public nature of broadcasting (Article 4) and the provisions on fairness and public nature of broadcasting (Article 5) were also enacted to abolish the provisions on fairness and public nature of broadcasting (Article 6).

In light of the reality of our broadcasting, emphasizing the public responsibility and fairness of broadcasting, whether a public or private broadcast is a public broadcast, can find legitimacy in view of the reality of our broadcasting. However, enforcing the fairness of broadcasting through a broadcast review system by an administrative agency that does not guarantee political impartiality may infringe on the freedom of broadcasting. Moreover, in 1980, the social reality has changed considerably from the time of the enactment of the Framework Act on Press in 1980, which introduced the provisions on public responsibility and public nature of broadcasting. In each sector of society, awareness that the diversity of democratic decision-making and value is respected and the diversity of diverse opinions should not be prevented. Broadcasting environment also changes from the past and the market where a terrestrial broadcast is centered on the terrestrial broadcast. Under such circumstances, the broadcast review system based on the provisions on the fairness of broadcasting introduced in 30 years ago needs to be operated taking into account the changed social reality and new broadcasting environment.

In addition, fairness is not a clear concept with one intention, but a flexible concept with the possibility of interpretation left.If the broadcast review system does not impose an unconstitutional regulation on the content of broadcasting, the fair provision of broadcasting should be applied carefully so as not to infringe on the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution.

3) Inasmuch as monitoring and criticisming government policies constitutes a core of freedom of broadcasting, the regulation of the broadcast content of the State’s broadcast content ought to be careful in order to ensure the diversity of broadcasting, barring any special circumstance. Administrative regulation on the broadcast content may be a serious threat to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution, but it has been accepted as justifiable on the basis of the characteristics of broadcast media. That is, due to the technical and economic limitations of broadcasting, the passage of information distribution is limited due to the strong appeal to broadcasting, the possibility of popular manipulation, and the strong impact on society, unlike other media, need to take measures to enforce the fairness and the public nature of broadcasting (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2009Hun-Ga27, Aug. 23, 2012). Such grounds were presented in mind by using the propagation of public and minor causes and taking into account the social influence of broadcasting.

However, as the convergence of media such as cable TV, satellite TV, etc. is accelerating, and the number of available channels increase and the broadcasting environment change, the scarcity logic of radio wave resources became difficult to have more persuasive and persuasive as a basis for the regulation of the content of broadcasting. With the various development of broadcasting media and the emergence of new types of media, the social impact of broadcasting can no longer be assessed uniformly. When the broadcast deliberation system introduced to regulate a small number of terrestrial broadcasts is applied arbitrarily to all broadcasting media, it may result in infringing on the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution.

The legislators, while granting a comprehensive authority to regulate broadcast content to administrative agencies, did not have any exceptional provision that considers the possibility of infringement on the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution. Accordingly, the court should interpret and apply the Review Provisions to a manner consistent with the Constitution.

B. Article 6 of the Broadcasting Act requiring the fairness, objectivity and balance of broadcasts acts as a norm of conduct imposing the responsibility to fair and objective reports to a broadcasting business entity, unless combined with the administrative sanctions, and thus does not essentially infringe on the freedom of broadcasting. However, the current broadcast review system, which is subject to sanctions by an administrative agency for a violation, can serve as a control of the broadcast content by an administrative agency as follows.

1) A regulation on the content of a broadcast may in itself bring about a decline in the freedom of broadcast. The regulation on broadcast may be divided into a formal regulation on broadcasting facilities or broadcast procedures and a content regulation on the content of broadcast. The regulation on the content of a broadcast is intended to correct and prevent harm caused by broadcast, but may infringe on the essential contents of the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution, contrary to the formal regulation on facilities, etc.

The national review system for broadcast content may result in substantial coercion of the value considered desirable by administrative agencies to broadcasting business operators through regulation. It is evident that the fairness, objectivity and balance of broadcast, which is the standard for review of broadcast content, is the standard for regulation of broadcast content itself. Even if the purpose of this standard is justifiable, the “regulation of broadcast content by administrative agencies” adopted as a means to realize it may be a serious threat to freedom of expression.

2) If a disciplinary measure is taken on the ground that the person did not observe the objectivity and fairness of the broadcast content, which is the review criteria for broadcast contents, it may bring about an excessive restriction on the freedom of broadcast. The objectivity and fairness of broadcast may change depending on the times, and may have different meanings depending on historical and social context, depending on the concept of value-oriented nature that may have different meanings depending on diverse perspectives. In particular, in a controversial case, the question of whether a person complies with objectivity and fairness may vary depending on who is the person to determine whether the person complies with such objectivity and fairness standards, and taking a disciplinary measure according to such unclear standards may distort the public debate that needs to be guaranteed free debate.

3) The current broadcast deliberation system is likely to infringe on the basic rights of a broadcasting business entity by focusing on the national convenience and efficiency of sanctions. Sanctions against a broadcasting business entity include excessive restriction on the freedom of broadcasting. In other words, sanctions against a broadcasting business entity include restriction on the fundamental rights of a broadcasting business entity. In short, given that sanctions are imposed upon a broadcasting business entity upon being imposed a disciplinary measure, they are reflected in the renewed license or renewal of authorization, it is highly disadvantageous to a broadcasting business entity (see Article 31 of the Broadcasting Act, Rule 5 [Attachment 5]. In addition, the term “Discipline against a person related to the relevant broadcast program” in the sanctions constitutes a measure that excessively limits the basic rights of a broadcasting business entity in light of the freedom and independence of broadcasting. The imposition of administrative sanctions against a broadcasting business entity on the grounds that the content of broadcasting has lost fairness or objectivity may infringe on

C. Impartiality and objectivity of broadcast content are more important than anything else than the voluntary will of a broadcasting business entity, and the regulation of a regulatory body alone cannot be guaranteed. If the competition mechanism of ideas exists inside a civil society, i.e., the primary mechanism that can resolve the harm prior to the State’s intervention, i.e., the issue of evaluation and choice should be first left to the free market of public opinion and ideas. The open space for freely exchanging diverse ideas and opinions should be secured, and the general public should have the opportunity to determine which opinion is right and wrong, considering various discussions and arguments delivered by the media, such as broadcasting, in that space.

D. Many legislative cases assign fairness and objectivity review of broadcast contents to a free autonomous review system from political influence. In particular, changes in the attitude of fairness theory, which was a standard for regulating broadcast content in the United States, have significant implications. In order to contribute to the public interest purpose of establishing and maintaining the order in free democracy, the public regulation on the fairness of broadcast was commenced in the United States. However, with the development of broadcast technology, the need to maintain the fairness principle as the number of media rapidly increases and the resource scarcitys are rarely increasing. After introducing the provision on the public responsibility and public nature of the media in Korea, the Framework Act on the Press officially abolished the fairness principle on the grounds that “The FSC violates the First Amendment that declared the freedom of expression,” and most of the principles on the selection of broadcasting companies and its freedom of expression, such as Sracuse, (i) the terrestrial broadcasting sector’s right to freedom of expression, (ii) the freedom of expression are infringed upon.

Under the broadcasting review system in Korea, it is necessary to ensure that a state agency’s regulation of the broadcast content does not include a comprehensive scope of regulation only on lewdness, abusiveism, etc. The evaluation of historical figures or cases dealt with in this case may be changed depending on social changes and the trend of history. It should be restricted to the maximum extent to directly intervene by administrative agencies in the broadcast of historical figures or cases on an abstract and ambiguous basis. However, it may not be exempt from criticism that the regulation of the administrative agency on the broadcast content is detrimental to political ideology or truth-finding.

As above, I express my concurrence with the Majority Opinion.

9. Concurrence with the Majority Opinion by Justice Kim Seon-soo and Justice Kim Jong-hwan

We supplement the Majority Opinion, citing the Dissent’s point of view.

A. Constitutional provisions and their spirit to be considered

Citizens do not want to understand the current and past issues from the perspective of our society and to establish and express their own views. In addition, we would like to pay attention to the process that leads to such a point of view in comparison with themselves, and to maintain and strengthen their previous positions by modifying or opposing their views through a sexual reflection on the grounds that they did not consider.

If the subject matter has a public nature in our society, any person who is in need of further, free, and open the dialogue or debate of our society about such a subject, and that there is a need to make the subject be rupture and scality.

The Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court has continuously emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution is the fundamental human rights of the people who contributed significantly to the continuous development of democracy and the rule of law.

The instant case pertains to the expression through broadcast media of the historical evaluation and interpretation of a part of the former presidents who were the representative state leaders of our modern history. As to the fact that the Korea Communications Commission, a state authority, exceeded the permissible limit of the contents of the broadcast, it is a matter of determination as to whether imposing an intrusion sanctions against a broadcasting business entity is legitimate. Although a broadcasting business entity dissatisfied with the sanctions upon the Plaintiff, the substance of the case is a trial as to whether the awareness and the contents of the expression presented to viewers through broadcast media violate relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Therefore, in light of the reasons and conclusion presented in the instant trial, “the degree of guaranteeing the people’s historical interpretation and expression,” and in other respects, “the limit and degree of the involvement of the State in the interpretation and expression of the history of the people” is required from the standpoint of the court. Ultimately, when interpreting the contents of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes on which each of the instant sanctions was based, and the legitimacy of each of the instant sanctions, the interpretation and purpose, function, etc. of Article 21 of the Constitution should be carefully considered in light of the nature of the State’s freedom of expression and censorship.

B. The need for constitutional understanding of the statute based on each of the instant sanctions

The term “fairness, objectivity, and balance” of a broadcast that the former Review Regulations demands a broadcasting business operator is an abstract concept. As such, the court should take full account of how to understand the concept, and how to establish a specific standard on the fulfillment of the concept, that the freedom of expression or the freedom of broadcast through broadcast media can be restricted and reduced through the broadcast media. In a case where the laws and regulations on the disposition of erosion against the people contain an abstract concept as above, the normative power should be restricted within a reasonable scope in light of the ideology of the rule of law under the Constitution of Korea. In particular, when interpreting the meaning of the former Review Regulations applied in the instant case, the content and purport of the superior laws that are the basis thereof, and the purport of the above provisions of the Constitution should be fully reflected.

In full view of the circumstances to be seen below, it is reasonable to determine whether the contents of the expression in question are in violation of the duty to maintain fairness, etc. as prescribed by the former Review Regulations, not whether the contents of the expression in question are the maximum contents that can contain the concept of fairness, etc., but are equipped with the minimum fundamental symbol held by the concept of fairness, etc. This would lead to the practice of the State’s neutral attitude of power as to the contents itself, which would lead to “the process of obtaining lessons that many people are able to understand through social debate.”

(c) Examination based on the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program;

The Dissenting Opinion criticizes the Majority Opinion that, while examining the objectivity, fairness and balance of each of the instant broadcasts, the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program should be considered, and in particular, a relaxed standard of review should be applied compared to terrestrial broadcasts, programs directly produced by broadcasting business entities, news report programs, etc.

1) The Majority Opinion, in determining the legality of each of the instant sanctions, that the Korea Communications Standards Commission ought to apply relatively relaxed criteria for objectivity, fairness, and balance when deliberating on each of the instant broadcasts, is based on the explicit provisions of the Broadcasting Act and the former Review Regulations that consider the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program, and interpreted as the Korea Communications Standards Commission when examining impartiality and public nature. Accordingly, it is unreasonable to point out the concurrence with the Dissenting Opinion that the above interpretation of the Majority Opinion unreasonably created the Dissenting Opinion’s pointed out that the above interpretation is contrary to the legal administrative principles or an ambiguous legal doctrine against the Dissenting Opinion.

The Majority Opinion’s more attention to the review given the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program is because it is necessary to emphasize the meaning of the above provisions in the changing media environment as now. Unlike the freedom of expression and the freedom of newspapers, unlike the fact that anyone can freely establish a publishing company in the publishing area and thereby can freely participate in the free market of ideas, unlike the fact that any person is able to freely establish a publishing company in the broadcasting area, and that there was a characteristic of holding the strong public opinion by owning and holding only small number of people in the broadcasting area due to the technical and special circumstances requiring large amounts of funds in the management in the broadcasting area. As a result, the diversity of opinions is not naturally given to broadcasting business entities, but should be artificially achieved through restrictions on the organization and rights of broadcasting business entities. It is also necessary for broadcasting business entities to take into account the various changes in the content of broadcasting media in the context of broadcasting media in which viewers and listeners were given with diverse information and opinions in a fair and balanced manner. However, it is also necessary to ensure that the broadcasting business entities have a variety of public opinion on the basis of changes in the content of broadcasting.

2) The relaxed review criteria should also be taken into account not only in the stage of determining the degree of sanctions but also in the stage of determining whether a broadcast violates the obligation of maintaining objectivity, fairness and balance. The Korea Communications Standards Commission that examines the violation of the obligation of maintaining objectivity, impartiality and balance of broadcasts under relevant provisions, such as the Broadcasting Act, must carefully determine the relevant broadcast in light of the circumstances, such as whether the relevant broadcast program was broadcasted through terrestrial broadcast media, whether the program directly produced by a broadcasting business entity is a news report program, and whether the program is a news report program. Considering the characteristics of each broadcast of this case by media, channel, and program, it would disregard the Broadcasting Act and the former Review Regulations.

In examining the objectivity, fairness and balance of broadcasting, any difference may be easily seen in light of the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program. On the other hand, in the case of a candidate debate program, a candidate’s debate program shall be evaluated differently from a report program, and shall be equally given an opportunity and time to speak to each candidate, and shall meet the strict requirements for balance. In the case of a debate program on current issues, those who have different opinions on the subject of debate shall be present at the same number, and each person shall be guaranteed the same time of speaking. It may be deemed that the requirements for balance are satisfied. In the case of a news report program by terrestrial broadcasting, not only does it include an objective report but also a distorted report or evaluation that conforms to the subjective intent of a broadcasting business operator, it is difficult to deem that the requirements for fairness are satisfied. On the other hand, in the case of a candidate debate program, it is reasonable on the premise that the producer of a historical documentary broadcasting business produces a certain intention with the same opportunity, and in the case of a viewer production program, it shall also be more reasonable to request the production of a broadcast program and entertainment program.

3) If the broadcast review does not take into account the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the general and comprehensive regulation of the broadcast content is subject to regulation, and ultimately, it is likely to excessively restrict the freedom of broadcasting by a broadcasting business entity. The Dissenting Opinion also argues that the Majority Opinion may infringe on the right to equality of broadcasting business entities by applying the mitigated review criteria to each of the instant broadcasts. However, if the Dissenting Opinion purports that the same review criteria should be applied without considering the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program, it would infringe the right to equality by treating the same as the end of the day.

4) The lower court did not properly consider the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program in determining whether each of the instant broadcasts complies with the obligation to maintain objectivity, impartiality, and balance.

A) In view of the characteristics of the broadcast media, the lower court determined that the need for discipline to guarantee the function of the broadcast is higher than that of the print media, such as newspapers, and accordingly, the Broadcasting Act demands fairness and objectivity of broadcast reports to broadcasting business operators, and that each of the instant sanctions is lawful. However, the lower court emphasizes only the characteristics of the broadcast media compared with those of the print media falling under any one of the media, but did not consider all the characteristics of each of the broadcast media as a means of transmitting broadcasts as a means of transmitting broadcasts. The lower court did not consider all the characteristics of each of the instant broadcasts provided through a cable or satellite in return for payment under a contract with viewers, even though the public nature of each of the instant broadcasts and its social impact

B) In determining whether each of the instant sanctions constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, the lower court determined that “the responsibility for fair and objectivity observance under the Broadcasting Act shall not be mitigated, even if the instant sanctions were to be imposed.” However, in determining whether each of the instant broadcasts violates the objectivity, fairness, and balance, the lower court did not consider the characteristics of each of the channels that provided the instant broadcasts. The Plaintiff’s medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium, which contributed to the formation of democratic public opinion. The viewers’ expectations on the programs produced by the viewers and the programs produced directly by the broadcasting business entity are different. In addition, the social influence and public confidence of each of the instant broadcasts are not the same as those of terrestrial, news reports, or news reports, but did not consider the characteristics of each of such channels entirely.

C) The lower court determined that the obligation to maintain fairness and objectivity of broadcasting by a broadcasting business entity is not exempt even if the relevant broadcast was engaged in historical documentary form. The lower court’s determination is acceptable. However, the lower court did not consider the characteristics of each of the instant broadcasts, which constitute a cultural program, as a historical documentary evidence that dealt with a matter of public interest, in determining whether each of the instant broadcasts violates the obligation to maintain objectivity, fairness and balance. While reporting programs aim at coverage and reporting, etc. of current events with respect to overall domestic and foreign politics, economy, society, culture, etc., the purpose of the cultural program is to improve the culture of the people. On the other hand, the historical documentary evidence based on a specific perspective is inevitable for the producer’s subjective perspective in light of its nature, and the viewers’ expectations on programs produced by viewers are different. In so doing, the lower court did not consider the characteristics of the broadcast program, such as a historical documentary report, etc., even though the viewers’ perception or trust of the general viewers as to the authenticity or diversity of the broadcast content.

D. Whether a person violates the duty to maintain objectivity

1) The Dissenting Opinion states that the materials asserted by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of investigation cannot be deemed to be objectively or as being verified as feed in the same age. All materials cited by the Plaintiff are objectively published or published. In addition, it cannot be known from the Dissenting Opinion that the meaning of “which was verified as feed in the same age,” and the verification of such feed may not be known as any standard. In addition, if only a report is permitted based on “materials verified as feed in the same age,” a broadcast of new evaluation of historical figures may be practically impossible. Whether each of the instant broadcasts maintains objectivity is basically based on the content of the broadcast and whether it is within the reasonable scope of interpretation of the historical materials.

2) The Dissenting Opinion has no choice but to evaluate that the translation of the materials on which each of the instant broadcasts was based has distorted facts by pretending to the truth. However, in each of the instant broadcasts, it appears that there was no error other than the translation of “chared”, which is a legal language, into the original text. With respect to the interpretation of the legal terms, even according to the translation submitted by the Defendant to the Supreme Court during the course of the final appeal, the translation of “cases to hwa, and kii, and to knited,” into “the case was transferred to hwa, and dismissed due to its dismissal.” The “Dismissal of prosecution” is a court judgment, regardless of its form or decision, which is based on the premise of the prosecutor’s prosecution. Meanwhile, the Dissenting Opinion translated the “dicism” into the original text of each of the instant broadcasts to the extent that the Dissent and the Defendant were to be translated, and the Defendant’s translation was based on the prosecutor’s submission of the indictment that was based on the premise that the Defendant’s prosecution was “s dismissal.”

3) The Dissenting Opinion did not accurately broadcast each of the instant broadcasts as far as possible with respect to the President Park Jong-hee, but distorted or inaccurate contents, thereby violating the duty of a guest under the former Review Regulations. However, as examined below, the matters pointed out by the Dissenting Opinion cannot be deemed as violating the duty of a guest.

A) The Dissenting Opinion cited the portion of the instant broadcast 1 that “Inman denied that Inman’s anti-Japanese thought at one school” on October 6, 1916, and distorted that Inman’s President was friendly to Japan, even if Inman was friendly to Japan, or that Inman was friendly to Japan. In light of the entire data, I intentionally extracted only a part of the said part that could have been interpreted differently, and intentionally extracted from the intent of production, thereby citing that only that part was historical facts.

The above newspaper articles articles (TER RES REITRNS KUTRAL COD COMAL: MoD COMD COMD COMAL: Modern Report No. 1958, Sep. 30, 1916) are articles articles containing half of doctor's degree of son's degree of son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor'.

B) According to the Dissenting Opinion, even if the CIA document is assumed to have recorded the Presidential’s personality as true, the broadcast of this case 1 broadcast, despite the three-dimensional evaluation of the Presidential’s character and career, solely by CIA’s evaluation as a non-permanent independence movement, is deemed to have shown only that CIA evaluated the President as a non-exclusive movement.

The foregoing CIA document is an official document at the time, which is not well known to us. It focuses on the fact that the broadcast of this case cannot be assessed as a pure independent movement. It is relatively recent, and it is clear that it is less known in relation to the President of this case based on the material that was not well known and disclosed, thereby raising questions to the existing historical norms.

There exists conflicting evaluations as to the president of the Lee Man-man, and the evaluation is bound to vary depending on which aspect emphasis exists. However, as in the Dissenting Opinion, if a variety of evaluations as to the president of the Lee Man-man are considered to be in compliance with the objective of the broadcast by introducing all various evaluations, it has reached the conclusion that a number of materials should be accepted as far as the subject of the broadcast is extremely narrow, and most of the research accumulated by scholars should be introduced. This is an unreasonable demand in light of all the circumstances, such as the time limit of the broadcast, etc., as well as the time limit, and the purport of the historical documentaryism may be colored. Moreover, it is difficult to address various issues arising from political and social unfair power relations by lowering the freedom of broadcast, which eventually leads to the development of democracy and the guarantee of citizens’ right to know.

C) According to the Dissenting Opinion, although Lee Man-man was subject to a disposition of non-suspect regarding violation of the Manner Act, the broadcast of this case 1 broadcast, “The U.S. investigators determined that only the Lee Man-man was a fluorous fluor, and prosecuted him.” Unlike the actual data, it is deemed that the broadcast distorted and distorted the facts in a way that is negative to the President.”

원고가 사료로 삼은 외국 문헌(The Koreans in Hawaii: A Pictorial History, 1903-2003)에는, “Rhee’s trip to Shanghai was further delayed in June 1920 when the U.S. Department of Labor charged Rhee with violating the Mann Act (transporting a woman across state lines for immoral purpose). The young female involved attested that Rhee was her surrogate father. The case was transferred to Hawaii, where it was dismissed. Rhee left for Shanghai in November 1920.”라고 기재되어 있다(밑줄은 편의상 부기하였다). 여기서 ‘charge’는, 그 주체가 ‘검사’가 아닌 ‘노동부 소속 이민국’이라는 점에서 검사가 특정한 형사 사건에 대하여 법원에 판단을 구하는 법률적 의미의 ‘기소’를 의미한다고 보기는 어렵다. 그러나 이승만 대통령이 1920년에 만(Mann)법 위반 혐의로 하와이에서 조사를 받은 사실이 인정되고, charge는 일반적으로 기소, 혐의 등으로, dismiss는 기각하다 등으로 번역되며, 이 부분 제재사유는 전체적으로 볼 때 이승만 대통령이 만(Mann)법 위반 혐의를 벗었다는 취지이므로 중요한 부분이 객관적 사실에 부합한다. 따라서 법률전문가가 아닌 제작자가 ‘charge’를 ‘기소’로, ‘dismissed’를 ‘기각결정’으로 표현한 것만으로 진실을 왜곡하거나 불명확한 내용을 사실인 것으로 방송하여 시청자를 혼동케 하였다고 평가하기는 어렵다.

D) The Dissenting Opinion argues that the press report was made in the U.S.’s position, and thus, it cannot be evaluated on the basis of this data on a conclusive basis of the achievements of the President Park Jong-hee’s economic growth. Furthermore, the instant broadcast 2, even though there were parts that can be evaluated differently from the said report, was extracted only the parts that correspond to the intent of production, and broadcasted as if it were historical facts, and that only the part was recorded as if it were a historical fact, and that the President Park Jong-hee intentionally excluded the construction of the heavy chemical industry

The press reports are conducted and prepared by the sub-committee of international organizations under the U.S. E. E. E. E. E.C. of the Republic of Korea in 1976, and confidential information is released after the period of confidentiality expires. Meanwhile, the instant broadcasts deal with the early economic development of the President Park Jong-hee after the military 16th military rhee, to the effect that the President of Park Jong-hee could have misstatementd the main evaluation of economic growth of Korea. This may be deemed to have been made with the intent to raise a question to the existing historical common sense by clarifying a relatively recent fact known in relation to the President Park Jong-hee on the basis of data that is not well known. Instead, the instant broadcasts are transmitting the subject of the broadcast as provided for in the instant report.

Furthermore, the instant broadcast 2 is limited to the initial economic policy, including the first five-year plan for economic development, and is a short fromang documentary form, which had been set up prior to dealing with the economic growth of Park Jong-hee regime. The fact that, at the time of planning, the instant broadcast 2 was planned to produce the “Wol Report (No. 2)” that deals with the details that a citizen was faced with the driving force of rapid economic growth in Korea, at the time of planning, was a subsequent production of the instant broadcast 2.

E) It is reasonable to view that the content of each of the instant broadcasts was based on historical facts, as well as the producer’s input of considerable effort to verify facts from the planning to the broadcast, and its content was based on historical materials. Moreover, considering the limitations of objective data, the overall impression that each of the instant broadcasts, including the content and composition of each of the instant broadcasts, the status and career of a person subject to an interview, etc., provided to viewers may be deemed as a result of an investigation of data to the greatest extent possible. Furthermore, the overall impression that each of the instant broadcasts, including the content and structure of the instant broadcasts, and the status and career of a person subject to an interview, may be deemed as having raised a question that is widely acceptable on the existing historical assessment and its premise. Accordingly, it is difficult to deem that each of the instant broadcasts did not distor

E. Whether the obligation to maintain fairness and balance is violated

1) The Dissenting Opinion argues that a variety of perspectives should be introduced within a single program, but the requirements for fairness and balance are satisfied. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff broadcasted a program composed of friendly and biased contents to the President of the Republic of Korea without any evidence, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that such opportunity has been granted or may be given to viewers with different opinions. Therefore, the Majority Opinion that the fairness and balance has been complied with in terms of the opportunity for participation is merely based on the good reason.

If a variety of points of view should be introduced within a broadcast program, it would be practically impossible to deal with various questions about the alcoholic point of view in broadcasting. This is because the historical documentary evidence that reflects the opinions of both producers and the relevant parties with a different point of view can be limited to a simple blishing perspective on the historical point of view. Since the positive evaluation of the achievements of the President Lee Jong-hee and Park Jong-hee are already occupying a liquor position, it is difficult to deem that the introduction of the contents thereof in each broadcast of this case is essential.

In principle, the Plaintiff appears to have formed programs with viewers, such as individuals and organizations, without regard to their class and form. As such, in the event of a request for broadcast of programs produced by viewers with different opinions from each of the instant broadcasts, it seems difficult for the Plaintiff to refuse it. Furthermore, these viewers may utilize the program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program program guaranteed by the Broadcasting Act and subordinate statutes. Therefore, the Dissenting Opinion’s position is unreasonable solely on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have a viewer requesting such program program

2) The Dissenting Opinion argues that each of the instant broadcasts was produced and broadcasted in a manner consistent with the direction according to the producer’s intent to produce, by editing and using an interview with experts or scholars selected in accordance with a specific direction-setting.

Absolute view that a right historical perception is absolutely possible is defined as the duty of historical studies that shows the fact that has been worked in the past as it is. From a perspective that it depends on the subjective evaluation and interpretation of a historicalist who gives a significant meaning to any of the facts of the past as a historical fact or who gives a significant meaning to the fact, and that historical facts depends on the subjective evaluation and interpretation of a historicalist. As such, the view that the existence of a historical fact can only be recognized and said fact can only be said to exist after a purely exists, rather than a purely speaking in itself, and a three example of subjective elements such as evaluation and interpretation.

In the past, if the meaning of the case was acquired only when interpreted from the present point of view, at least, ‘the dependence on the viewpoint of literary” in the history can be said to be much higher than that of natural science.

As such, if we affirm that the degree of attention and interest in historical interpretation and factual relations presumed to have been different depending on the perspective and view held by the subject of historical interpretation and expression, it is doubtful whether the interpretation and expression of the history revealed through each of the instant broadcasts can be unfair. If each of the instant broadcasts finds out certain historical issues, which are not clearly established, and based on which it was based, and did not exceed the scope of reasonable interpretation of the said historical materials, it is reasonable to keep the mind and view raised by each of the instant broadcasts as well as to reverse the existing common sense assessment of the former presidents.

Furthermore, it is inevitable to limit the subject of interview on the basis of the production limit of historical documentary media. Furthermore, experts or scholars who have interviewed in each of the instant broadcasts are recognized as having engaged in long-term research activities in the relevant field and copyrighted works, etc.

F. Whether the deceased person violated his duty to respect the deceased person

1) In interpreting Article 20(2) and (3) of the former Review Regulations, the Dissenting Opinion emphasizes the difference between administrative sanctions and criminal liability while borrowing the legal doctrine as to the elements for the defamation of a deceased person under Article 308 of the Criminal Act and the grounds for the exclusion of illegality. The Majority also emphasizes the difference between administrative sanctions and criminal liability. While Article 308 of the Criminal Act explicitly provides for the statement of false facts in the elements of a crime, Article 20(2) of the former Review Regulations has been developed on the premise of the clear recognition that there is no such restriction provision. The Majority Opinion does not cause confusion between criminal liability and administrative sanctions, and with respect to Article 20(2) and (3) of the former Review Regulations, reasonable interpretation is made by comprehensively taking into account the contents and overall circumstances of the provision.

2) The Dissenting Opinion argues that the purpose of the Dissenting Opinion is to protect a deceased person’s reputation more seriously than that of a deceased person who can take the forum for debate. In the case of historical facts, even in light of the legal doctrine that the freedom of inquiry or expression on historical facts should be protected more than that of a deceased person upon the passage of time, it is not important to consider when determining whether each of the instant broadcasts constitutes a disciplinary ground for each of the instant broadcasts. The purport of the Dissenting Opinion is that: (a) a deceased person is in a situation in which a deceased person cannot directly make a reply or debate with respect to each of the instant broadcasts; and (b) a person with different opinions can criticize and broadcast each of the instant broadcasts by producing and broadcasting viewer production programs.

3) The Dissenting Opinion argues that in each of the instant broadcasts, the Defendant committed a false assertion or comment as a sanction, and that the content thereof cannot be deemed as solely pertaining to the public interest, and thus violated the duty of respect for respect for a deceased person under the former Review Regulations. However, the Dissenting Opinion’s above points are difficult to agree for the following reasons.

A) In the broadcast 1 of this case, the content of this case’s broadcast, “If ......., the horses of this case are the same as the Japanese colonial modernism, ....., it may be viewed as an expression of opinion on the contents of an interview held by the president of this case. 3 years have passed since the Japanese colonial rule began, but it can be seen as a statement of opinion as seen above. Furthermore, as to the independence movement of the president of this case, the contents of this case’s broadcast, “if ...., the horses of this case are viewed as the same as the Japanese colonial rule, ...., the Japanese colonial rule, ...., the Japanese colonial rule, .... the Japanese rule, .... the Japanese rule, .... the Japanese rule, .... the Japanese rule, ... the Japanese rule, .... the Japanese rule, ... the Japanese rule, ... the Japanese rule, demanding the government to suspend its expression of opinion.

B) In order to constitute a statement of false facts in which the Defendant used as sanctions, the part of the broadcast content is not consistent with objective facts on the premise that the broadcast content constitutes a statement of specific facts that can be proven by evidence. The Dissenting Opinion argues that, based on the press report, etc. prepared from the U.S. standpoint that cannot be seen as objective, the broadcast 2 of this case’s broadcasts definited the economic development achievements of the President Park Jong-hee, and immediately stated false facts. From the perspective of this logic, all documents written in foreign countries cannot be seen as objective, and therefore, a statement of fact based on foreign literature is difficult to understand that the statement of fact is a statement of false facts immediately.

C) According to the Dissenting Opinion, Nonparty 1’s 6th President Park Jong-hee’s expression “SNK PAK,” Nonparty 1’s 6th President Park Jong-hee’s 5th President Park Jong-hee’s 19th President’s 6th anniversary of this case’s broadcast, Nonparty 1’s 6th President Park Jong-hee’s 16th President’s 6th anniversary of this case’s 196th President Park Jong-hee’s 6th election, and Nonparty 1’s 6th President Park Jong-hee’s 1st 6th 1st son’s 6th 1st son’s 6th 6th 1st son’s 6th 1st son’s 6th 1st son’s 6th 1st son’s 6th 1st son’s 6th 1st son’s 16th son’s 16th son’s 2nd 196th son.

G. As to the supplementary opinion with the Dissenting Opinion and the Dissenting Opinion

1) According to the Majority Opinion, the Dissenting Opinion has reached the conclusion that even a broadcast of the content of insulting and brutating a specific historical person solely on the basis of the selective and biased material, if it takes the form of historical documentary screening, it would be impossible to impose any sanctions pursuant to the Broadcasting Act.

In a case where a broadcast content insults and criticizes a specific historical figure, sanctions may be taken pursuant to Article 27(2) of the former Review Regulations, and the Majority Opinion recognizes the same. Moreover, if a historically verified false fact as a truth is broadcast as if it were true, and insults and insults a historical figure, it may also be subject to sanctions, and the Majority Opinion recognizes it. The foregoing point of view by the Dissenting Opinion is entirely misunderstanding the Majority Opinion, and it is unreasonable as it criticizes the premise.

The Majority Opinion did not decide that each of the instant broadcasts could not constitute the grounds for sanctions by taking into account only one characteristic of historical documentary media, but also considered the characteristics of each medium and channel, and further determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the intent to produce each of the instant broadcasts and the content of broadcasting, and the producer’s efforts to investigate the materials referred to.

2) The Dissenting Opinion recognized that the broadcast of this case was produced with “the purpose of raising suspicion on the basis of specific historical data as to whether the President was a genuine independent movement” as to the production purpose of the broadcast of this case, and recognized that the broadcast of this case “the broadcast of this case was analyzed through a press report, etc. reported to the U.S. Congress in 1978 on the external activities of the President Park Jong-hee and the cause of Korean economic growth, etc.” In the end, based on the historical records that were not widely known among the broadcasts of this case, it can be evaluated that the broadcast of this case was produced and broadcasted for the purpose of new evaluation of the President Park Jong-hee. It is difficult to view that the broadcast of this case was produced and broadcasted for the purpose of a balanced historical evaluation of the President Park Jong-hee, on the basis of the historical records that was not widely known among the broadcasts of this case.

3) The concurring opinion with the Dissenting Opinion states that when producing and broadcasting historical documentary evidence for historical figures, the responsibility for broadcasting should be fulfilled so as to contribute to the preference of the community. Each of the instant broadcasts does not contribute to the achievement of the purpose of pursuing the public good by unilaterally emphasizing only the negative aspects against the President Park Jong-hee, and does not contribute to the achievement of the objective of pursuing the public good, and there is a risk of unnecessary conflict and division. Here, the term “community preference” appears to mean public interest. The purport of each of the instant broadcasts that did not deal with the positive assessment in a situation where the liquor assessment against the President Park Jong-hee has already been formed is that it goes against the public interest, it is difficult to accept by preventing a variety of opinions of the people. The importance of the critical role of broadcasting should not be emphasized, but it should not be neglected to introduce and seek a new point of view.

4) The concurring opinion with the Dissenting Opinion emphasizes the roles and responsibilities of broadcasting for reconciliation and integration in a democratic Republic. Of various forms, the Republic of Korea is a democratic Republic in which each constituent member of society is respected with dignity and value as human beings, pursuing happiness as sovereigns, and has the right to participate in politics as sovereigns. The provisional charter distributed on April 11, 1919 by the provisional government of the Republic of Korea declared on April 11, 191 as “the Republic of Korea shall be a democratic system.” This was succeeded to the provision of Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea promulgated in 1948, “the Republic of Korea shall be a democratic Republic,” and the current Constitution continues to be the core of the Constitution until it reaches the current Constitution.” The current Constitution is “The temporary charter distributed on April 11, 1919 by the temporary government of the Republic of Korea shall clearly succeed to the legal interpretation of the Republic of Korea established by the Republic of Korea as a democratic republic.”

In the Democratic Republic, the weight of the human rights and freedom of expression of one of its members is consistent with the weight of the Republic as a whole. It is the essential body of the Democratic Republic immediately without undue infringement on the individual's human rights and freedom of expression, which is necessary to maintain the safety and integration of the Republic as a whole. The net democratic Republic, which takes precedence over the Republic's reconciliation and integration over the individual's human rights and freedom of expression, may be damaged from its essence. While recognizing that the value of reconciliation and integration is valuable, it is likely that democracy, which emphasizes indiscreet reconciliation and integration, might be a sense.

In a democratic Republic, the majority opinion should be gathered and maintained to create and maintain democratic political order through the free formation and transmission of public opinion. As such, freedom of expression and, in particular, freedom of expression on public concerns should be guaranteed as an important constitutional right as much as possible (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da61654, Oct. 30, 2018). Freedom of broadcasting not only has the characteristics of subjective freedom, but also has the characteristics that contribute to the substantial guarantee of freedom of speech, which serves as the basis for the existence and development of democracy by enabling the exchange of diverse information and opinions, and thus, it should be free from the State’s power as well as various powers of society so as to reflect the diverse opinions of the people in broadcasting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da15660, May 10, 2012). Where broadcasting does not reflect the remaining people’s opinions excessively emphasizing the reconciliation and integration of community, social caution should always be ruled out as a whole.

5) The concurring opinion with the Dissenting Opinion concerns that each of the instant sanctions and the instant sanctions, as well as the conflict situation between the public interest, which is the Plaintiff’s freedom as a broadcasting business entity, and the public interest, which is the responsibility of the press for the integration of the public, are unlawful by viewing that each of the instant sanctions is unlawful, thereby harming the broadcasting review system and impairing the balance between the responsibility of broadcasting and the freedom of broadcasting business entities.

However, the Supreme Court’s position and role as the final dispute settlement body of the Supreme Court, which is the highest legal basis, to properly arbitrate and resolve conflicts in relation to each of the instant sanctions through the first instance court and the lower judgment. In addition, the Majority Opinion’s interpretation that each of the instant sanctions was unlawful cannot be said to have implemented the broadcast deliberation system, and it is more realistic to have more concrete validity. Since the Korea Communications Standards Commission was established on May 2008, a number of cases disputing the legality of the sanctions on programs dealing with social issues or interests, and the court denied that the legality of the sanctions was recognized in accordance with each of the instant sanctions. The Majority Opinion construed the legality of each of the instant sanctions in line with the Constitution and the statutes related to the broadcast deliberation system in determining the legality of each of the instant sanctions. While the Dissenting Opinion’s concurrence with the Dissenting Opinion is likely to only create unnecessary conflicts and divisions, this may cause fundamental solution through active discussions in our society through broad permission of freedom of broadcasting.

H. The sanctions against the broadcast content shall be limited to a minimum, and if a program that deals with historical facts, the evaluation of which is inevitable, is broadcast through a lux channel operated for the diversity of broadcasting, the necessity or scope of such sanctions should be more careful when determining the necessity or scope of such sanctions. In order to mature democracy with a correct historical perception, various possibilities of criticism should be opened. It is desirable to view the past from a variety of perspectives more comprehensively and in a more comprehensive and three-dimensional manner than a single historical perception. This is because various points of view are more comprehensive and three-dimensional historical perceptions at the point of discussion.

The debate between the Justices does not have reached the point of view and evaluation on the historical issues raised in the instant broadcast, which are more reasonable and reasonable. As stated in the two, various opinions are divided on the legal issues of “the limitation and degree of the involvement of state power in the interpretation and expression of the people’s history.”

As above, I express my concurrence with the Majority Opinion.

10. Opinion concurring with the Dissenting Opinion by Justice Jo Hee-de and Justice Park Sang-ok

(a) the roles and responsibilities of broadcasts for reconciliation and integration beyond conflict and division;

1) The Republic of Korea is a democratic Republic (Article 1(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea). The Republic of Korea goes beyond the king and Japanese colonial rule, and the democratic Republic was built, and as a result, there was a wide experience in the new parliamentary body. While historical figures who had been active before and after the Sea was able to do their best under the goal of constructing a new democratic Republic, there is a lot of political and policy error in terms of the present point of view, it cannot be denied that there was a lot of political and policy errors. On the other hand, teachers’ lessons may be obtained through historical reflection. Therefore, it is desirable that broadcasting as media deals with the political and policy errors of historical figures before and after the Sea in the modern historical context.

Modern history has repeated debate. When broadcasting deals with modern history and people related thereto, the purport of the ideology of the preamble of the Constitution and the institutional guarantee of the Democratic Republic, which intends to further establish the fundamental order of free democracy on the basis of autonomy and harmony, and the press should not infringe on other persons' honor or rights or public morals or social ethics (Article 21(3) and (4) of the Constitution).

The Republic of Korea is divided into South and North Korea, and the degree and attitude of completion pursuing the change and reform of the position and society toward North Korea is divided into two Koreas. These confrontations are divided into two Koreas. There are the President of Park Jong-hee. Our modern history is diverse interpretations in accordance with the historical perspective. As we agree with the Majority Opinion, the evaluation of the President Park Jong-hee constitutes “an extremely conflicting case with social issues or interests” as provided in Article 9(2) of the former Review Regulations. As such, when producing and broadcasting historical documentary evidence, which inevitably requires objectivity, fairness and balance, the broadcast is responsible for causing or encouraging unnecessary conflicts and contributing to the preference of the community.

2) Article 21 of the Constitution provides for the freedom and limitation of the press and the institutional guarantee of broadcasting. The broadcasting laws and regulations embodying such constitutional spirit shall contribute to the unity of the people to the development of the nation and the formation of democratic public opinion, and shall not encourage any conflict between regions, generations, classes, and gender, and shall not harm others’ reputation or infringe upon their rights (Article 5 of the Broadcasting Act); and shall impose on broadcasting business operators the obligation to observe objectivity, fairness, balance and respect reputation; and if the Korea Communications Standards Commission determines that the contents of broadcasting violate the Review Regulations by enacting and amending the Review Regulations, it may determine sanctions such as correction, revision or suspension of the relevant broadcast program, disciplinary action against persons in charge of broadcast programming and the relevant broadcast program, and imposition of penalty surcharges on the person in charge of broadcast programming and the relevant broadcast program; and the Defendant may accordingly take sanctions accordingly (Article 6, 10, 32, 330, 100, 140, 204, Article 19, etc. of the Broadcasting Act).

3) The Defendant imposed each of the instant sanctions on the grounds that each of the instant broadcasts against Lee Jong-man and Park Jong-hee lost objectivity, fairness, and balance, and that he failed to fulfill his duty of respect for the deceased, and the first instance court and the lower court determined that each of the instant sanctions was lawful.

4) In light of the fact that considering the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program, the majority opinion and the concurring opinion are subject to relatively mitigated review criteria for cultural programs, such as historical documentary evidence, and that the imposition of administrative sanctions on expressive acts in a democratic society may infringe on the freedom of expression and may infringe on the freedom of expression, and thus be unconstitutional, each of the instant broadcasts complies with the duty of maintaining objectivity, fairness, and balance, and cannot be deemed as false facts, or as a statement of fact for the sake of public interest, each of the instant sanctions disposition is unlawful.

However, as seen earlier, each of the instant sanctions is based on the broadcasting laws enacted pursuant to Article 21 of the Constitution, which provides for the freedom and limitation of the press and the institutional guarantee of broadcasting, and there is no room for raising any question of freedom of expression or unconstitutionality. Whether the grounds for each of the instant sanctions are recognized in each of the instant sanctions, and whether the degree of the disposition is a deviation or abuse of discretionary power or whether the degree of the disposition constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary power. The allegation that each of the instant sanctions is likely to infringe on the freedom of expression or that there is a possibility of infringing on the freedom of expression or that there is a unconstitutionality of

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the degree of loss of objectivity, fairness, and balance is deemed to have reached the degree of loss of objectivity, impartiality, and balance in light of the specific contents, composition, and editing form of each of the instant broadcasts. Therefore, even considering the intent, form, and institutional purport of each of the instant broadcasts and the program’s program, each of the instant sanctions is lawful in light of the degree of imbalance. There is no way to know how to apply more relaxed review standards. Each of the instant broadcasts is unilaterally dealing with negative aspects against the President Lee Jong-hee-hee and the negative aspects of the instant broadcasts, which are positive or negative, and other aspects, on the other hand, lose objectivity, fairness, and balance without considering the end of all, and thus, the mitigated review standards may not vary even if they are applied. Inasmuch as the Majority Opinion’s logic does not require objectivity, fairness, and balance in the case of cultural programs, such as historical documentary evidence, it is difficult to obtain administrative sanctions even in the event of loss of objectivity, fairness, and balance.

Each of the instant sanctions is conducted through a broadcast review under the Broadcasting Act, and does not result in prior censorship against the media, and does not prohibit or suspend the transmission of each of the instant broadcasts. At present, anyone is allowed to access each of the instant broadcasts to view the instant broadcasts. Each of the instant sanctions is merely an administrative sanction that the Defendant ex post facto rendered on the ground of the Defendant’s obligation to maintain objectivity, fairness, and balance and to maintain the reputation of the deceased, and the level of its disposition is merely a minimum. The attacking by raising the issue of freedom of expression and the unconstitutionality is nothing more than an exaggerationd debate that is entirely unreasonable.

Therefore, recognizing that each of the instant broadcasts did not lose objectivity, fairness, and balance by editing or reproducing facts in line with a specific position, and that it violated the former Review Regulations, and that each of the instant sanctions is lawful, the lower court’s determination that the instant sanctions were lawful can be fully satisfied. The Majority Opinion denies the minimum responsibility of broadcasting, and thus, cannot be accepted.

(b) Responsibilities of reconciliation and integration in history and responsibilities of State agencies, etc.;

Compared with the harsh results of the following: (a) the process that served as the psychological foundation for the integration of the people after the reunification of Korea; and (b) the process that served as a social foundation for the integration of the people after the unification of Korea; (c) the process that served as a social foundation for the unification of Korea; and (d) the process that served as a social foundation in the Joseon Dynasty or in the crisis of the Republic of Korea; and (d) the process that served as a public good by asking for a large amount of public service, who served as a public good, for the crimes committed during the Joseon War; and (e) the process that served as a public good, and the conflict between the government and the endors who served as a public good, caused the nation and the people, can save

In order to avoid conflict and division, it cannot be said that the meaning of the need for reconciliation and integration is that the truth should be removed, concealed, or all community members should always maintain the same opinion. All citizens, including scholars and broadcasting business operators, may evaluate historical figures differently according to their respective subjective values, and at the same time there may be a profound conflict and debate. However, the historical mission of the President, the National Assembly, and other public institutions of the State, such as the judiciary, and the judiciary, may contribute to the unity of the people and the development of a harmonious state as much as possible and harmonious as possible, and the responsibilities prescribed by the Constitution and the Broadcasting Act should not be promoted.

In a case where social conflicts arise due to broadcasting, the Broadcasting Act has the deliberation system of the Korea Communications Standards Commission to resolve these conflicts. In a case where the parties are dissatisfied with the Defendant’s disciplinary measure according to the result of deliberation by the Korea Communications Standards Commission recognized to have expertise and independence, the court shall arbitrate and resolve the situation of social conflicts by making a judicial judgment on what the value should be given more priority between the freedom of broadcasting business operators and the freedom of viewers through assertion and certification during the trial process. The decision of the Korea Communications Standards Commission and each of the instant sanctions and the judgment of the first instance court. In light of the characteristics of each of the instant sanctions by medium, channel, and program, the lower court, even if considering the characteristics of each of the instant sanctions, deemed that each of the instant sanctions was taken as a minimum measure, concluded

C. The risks of conflict and division of each of the instant broadcasts

1) Each of the instant broadcasts, rather than as a political, political or negative public figure of the President Park Jong-hee, may be aware that the Plaintiff, with respect to the character of the instant broadcasts, mainly subjective, malicious, or negative, has made an insulting expression by putting the same up with private life. The issue of personality is not a political, political, or exaggeration of a specific person, but a matter of personality is an extremely subjective area of a specific person. In particular, it is difficult for a person to directly reflect on the news that deals with negative assessment of his or her personality. Therefore, in a case where a person broadcasts a portion of his or her privacy, including a deceased person’s personality, he or she need to faithfully comply with the obligation to observe objectivity, fairness, and balance and to respect the deceased person’s reputation. Above all, in transmitting broadcasts, he or she should unilaterally maintain balance with fair and objective materials, rather than a decent expression, use an insulting expression, but should not be able to have an objective and indecent expression made up of a specific person’s personality.

In light of each of the broadcasts of this case, it can be known that only from the beginning to the end, the negative aspects of the President Park Jong-hee were unilaterally raised to criticize character by using insulting expressions. Accordingly, the lower court determined that each of the broadcasts of this case was lost, not to the degree of lack of objectivity, fairness and balance, and that the obligation to respect the deceased was not fulfilled. In particular, the instant broadcast of this case was divided into three categories automatically: “If our country is changed to any of its countries, the citizens of this country are divided into three categories. One is the other, and the other is the head of Sin-hee, and the other is the head of Sin-hee.” In order to refer to the fact that the Plaintiff’s members of the Republic of Korea are able to have been deprived of their own ability, the lower court did not introduce the Plaintiff’s theory on the instant broadcast of this case in the way of “Irremanism,” and on the premise of the Plaintiff’s participation in the broadcast of this case.”

Such a broadcast is in danger of not responding to the role of the media as stipulated in the Constitution and creating unnecessary conflicts and divisions.

2) The judiciary cannot interpret history, and does not intend to interpret the historical evaluation of the President Lee Jong-hee. However, if the content of each of the instant broadcasts as stated in the Majority Opinion is objectively, fairly, and balanced, and observed the duty of respect for the deceased and complied with the duty of respect for the deceased, the Supreme Court’s opinion expressed that it is within the scope of and under which our society is able to be able to be able to be able to be able to have and able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to have a new conflict and division between the people who are acceptable and the people who are not the same. rather than criticism against political and policy errors, each of the instant broadcasts, the contents of which are the contents of unilateral and malicious attacking an individual’s personality, is not known.

3) In light of the specific contents of each of the instant broadcasts, it is difficult for the Majority Opinion to agree that each of the instant broadcasts complies with the various obligations imposed by the former Review Regulations, as long as the said broadcasts unreasonable legal doctrine was created that the former Review Regulations should be set differently according to the characteristics of each medium, channel, and program. Nevertheless, the Majority Opinion’s interpretation that each of the instant broadcasts was unlawful even the minimum administrative sanctions ex post facto rendered following the deliberation of the Korea Communications Standards Commission, which recognized professionalism and independence, would distort the broadcast review system in accordance with the Constitution and the Broadcasting Act and subordinate statutes, and would distort the balance between the responsibility of broadcasting and the freedom of broadcasting business operators, which address social issues or conflicts of interest.

For the foregoing reasons, I express my concurrence with the Dissenting Opinion.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)