[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that even if the confessions of the relevant suspect acquired as evidence by force during the investigation of the suspect are not voluntary, unless the investigative agency finds specific offenses such as violence and intimidation during the process of acquiring them, it alone goes beyond denying the admissibility of evidence and cannot be held liable for tort against the relevant investigative agency

[2] Requirements for public announcement of suspected facts by an investigative agency to be permitted, and the criteria for determining whether the illegality thereof is dismissed

[3] The case holding that the illegality of the act of publishing the suspected facts by an investigative agency is not denied

[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that, in light of the fact that the confessions of the relevant suspect acquired as evidence by force during the investigation of the suspect are in essence of arbitracy, unless specific offenses such as violence and intimidation cannot be discovered in the process of acquisition, it does not constitute tort liability against the relevant investigation agency beyond denying the admissibility of evidence of confession

[2] The general public has the right to know about crimes committed in society and the investigative agency's presentation of a suspected fact is one of the methods for meeting such rights of the people. However, Article 27 (4) of the Constitution declares the principle of presumption of innocence against the accused. Article 126 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of publishing a suspected fact known to the public in the course of performing their duties before the request for public trial is made. Article 198 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that public prosecutor, judicial police officer or other persons related to investigation shall keep secrets and respect the human rights of the accused or other persons. Since the disclosure of a suspected fact by an investigative agency is based on the results of an investigation by public authority and its contents may cause fatal harm to the public, such as the disclosure of a suspected fact or its contents, the disclosure of a suspected fact should be made in accordance with the procedure and method of disclosure to the public, the disclosure of the fact should be made in a way that it does not infringe upon the public interest of the accused or other persons adjacent thereto, the announcement of the fact should be made in an objective and justifiable manner and reasonable manner of disclosure.

[3] The case holding that the illegality of the act of publishing the suspected facts by an investigative agency is not denied

[1] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Article 27(4) of the Criminal Act, Articles 126, 307, and 310 of the Criminal Act, Article 198 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [3] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 126 and 310 of the Criminal Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da10215, 10222 decided Jan. 26, 1999 (Gong1999Sang, 330) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da68474 decided Nov. 30, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 167)

Plaintiff 1 and 14 others

Plaintiff 16 and one other (Law Firm Busan, Attorneys Jeong Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Busan High Court Decision 200Na12570 delivered on June 21, 2001

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs 16 and 17 (hereinafter referred to as the "Nussian plaintiffs").

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance, the court below found that the defendant's investigation agency's act of violence against the Busan District Police Agency and Busan District Police Agency (hereinafter referred to as "the Busan District Police Agency") was not sufficient to find that the defendant's act of violence against the defendant 1 was committed during the investigation period of 1 year or longer since June 196, and that the defendant's act of violence against the defendant 1 was not sufficient to find that the defendant 10's act of violence against the defendant 1 was committed against the law, and that the defendant 10's act of violence against the defendant 1 was not sufficient to find that the defendant 5's act of violence against the defendant 1 was committed against the defendant 1, 4, 13, and 7 (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff 1 et al."), and that the defendant 1's act of violence against the defendant 5's act of violence against the defendant 1 and the defendant 5's act of violence against the defendant 1's investigation.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the degree of suspicion in the commencement of an investigation, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs 16 and 17

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the records, the court below acknowledged the facts of the judgment, and determined that the above search and seizure of the plaintiff 16, 17, and 17 are unlawful on the premise that the above search and seizure of the plaintiff 16, and the plaintiff 17's claim for damages based on the premise that the above search and seizure of the plaintiff 16, and the plaintiff 17's claim for damages against the plaintiff 17 is not unlawful, because the plaintiff 16, 17 already married a marriage, were executed after obtaining a search and seizure warrant from the Busan District Court. But the plaintiff 16, and 17 are living independently from the plaintiff 13 due to their marriage and division of the plaintiff 13, but they are living frequently and frequently as female siblingss, it cannot be deemed that the above search and seizure of the plaintiff 16, and the plaintiff 17's claim for damages, as the grounds for appeal are justified.

3. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

General citizens have the right to know about all crimes committed in society and the investigative agency’s presentation of a suspected fact is one-time exchange of methods to satisfy these rights of the people. However, Article 27(4) of the Constitution declares the principle of presumption of innocence against the criminal defendant. Article 126 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of publishing a suspected fact known to the public prior to the public prosecutor, police or other duties concerning criminal investigation or a person supervising or assisting in such duties shall be a crime committed before the public trial request. Article 198 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a public prosecutor, judicial police officer or other persons related to investigation shall maintain confidentiality and respect the human rights of a criminal suspect or other persons. In addition, an act of disclosure of a suspected fact by an investigative agency shall be made based on the results of an investigation by public authority and shall be made public with a strong trust of its contents to the public, and shall be made public in view of the fact that an act of disclosure may cause fatal harm to a criminal suspect or other persons adjacent thereto, and shall also be made public in an objective and justifiable manner which shall be announced in accordance with the objective and legitimate purpose of the public opinion.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts based on the recruitment evidence, and judged that the Busan District Police Agency, etc. violated Article 126 of the above Criminal Code by disclosing the facts of five counter-espionage suspicions such as plaintiff 1, etc. to the press before and after the prosecution's dispatch, and the fact of five counter-espionage suspicions such as plaintiff 1, etc. are not true by the final judgment of the court, and therefore, five honors such as plaintiff 1, etc. were severely damaged, and that their parents suffered considerable mental distresss, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the above tort committed by the Busan District Police Agency, etc., and therefore, the defendant is liable for compensation for damages suffered by the remaining plaintiffs due to the above tort committed by five counter-espionage suspicions such as plaintiff 1, etc. such as the Busan District Police Agency, etc., and further, in light of the objectivity and accuracy of the announced crime, the procedure and form of announcement, the method of expression, the nature of infringement benefits from announcement, etc.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the denial of illegality in publishing facts or defamation, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)