[1] The grounds for rejecting illegality of a civil defamation act, and the criteria for determining whether a publicly alleged fact constitutes the public interest

[2] Whether it is public in nature to clarify the identity of an offender or a person suspected of a crime in reporting a crime case in a mass media

[1] Article 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 307 and 310 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 307 and 310 of the Criminal Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da17257 delivered on July 14, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2108) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da36329 delivered on October 11, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3297) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15922 delivered on December 222, 2006 (Gong2007Sang, 206)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Kang Han-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Yonhap News Co., Ltd. and four others (Attorneys Lee Jin-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Na6200 Decided August 31, 2006

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below, comprehensively based on the adopted evidence, prepared an article stating that the plaintiff operated the "Choology" in Daegu Suwon-gu. The plaintiff did not directly prepare drugs classified as narcotics at regular guidance and inspection conducted by the Korea Food and Drug Administration on October 19, 2004 by the plaintiff, who is not a person handling narcotics, and discovered that the plaintiff employed the plaintiff, not a person handling narcotics, and prepared drugs. The Korea Food and Drug Administration announced the result of the above regular guidance and inspection on April 8, 2005. The defendant Yonhap News Co., Ltd and the social news newspaper Co., Ltd. announced the above regular guidance and inspection on April 1, 2005, based on the news report data of the Korea Food and Drug Administration, it was difficult for the defendants to view that the plaintiff's aforementioned report and the defendant's health care service provider's health care service provider did not harm the plaintiff's health care service provider's reputation or the defendant's health care service provider.

2. Even in the case of an act impairing another person’s reputation under a civil law, if the purpose of the act is solely for the public interest, there is no evidence that it is true fact, or if there is considerable reason to believe that it is true, it is not illegal. Whether the alleged fact concerns the public interest or not shall be determined by comparing and considering all the matters pertaining to the expression itself, such as the specific contents of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the luminous cooperation within the scope of the counter-party to whom the publication of the relevant fact was made, the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of other persons’ reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression. Generally, the report of a mass media case shall be critically lighting the behavior of the crime, and shall be governed by social norms, and legal sanctions against the violation shall be imposed, and shall also serve as a means of providing information necessary for the formation of public opinion by clarifying the social and cultural conditions of the crime and taking social measures therefor. Thus, a report of the mass media can be treated as a report of a criminal and a report of the public interest of the criminal.

According to the above legal principles and records, the plaintiff is merely a usual mental doctor and cannot be viewed as a public figure, and even in light of the content and nature of the crime, there is no legitimate interest that ordinary citizens should know about the crime alleged by the defendants, even if there is a legitimate interest to do so, it cannot be viewed that the matters on the plaintiff's identity specified in the report of the crime committed by the plaintiff can not be a matter of public interest. Thus, each of the above reports by the defendants cannot be viewed as a violation of defamation against the plaintiff. Meanwhile, the report materials announced by the Food and Drug Stabilization Administration indicate the real name of businesses violating the plaintiff's hospital, etc., or the defendants prepared and reported articles based on the report materials by the Korea Food and Drug Administration, or reported the articles based on the so-called contract with the defendant Yonhap News, or based on the article. Thus, it cannot be viewed otherwise.

Nevertheless, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court concluded that the Defendants’ act of clarifying the Plaintiff’s identity in reporting the Plaintiff’s crime as a person handling narcotics constitutes defamation against the Plaintiff. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for the elimination of illegality in defamation by means of anonymous reporting or press reports, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)