1.(a)

Within seven days from the date this ruling became final and conclusive, the Defendant “B” of TV set forth by the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff as a party is a police officer who served in the investigation and E team in Seoul Sejong Police Station at the time of the instant report, which is seen below as a believers religious organization (one religious organization D; hereinafter “D religious organization”).

The Defendant is a broadcasting company operating the general programming channel’s “TV”, and is broadcasting the “B” program in the said channel.

B. The defendant's report

f. A report on the substance of G known as the principal of a D religious organization in the “B” program and on the substance of a D religious organization, and a report was made in the form of an interview with G’s driver I and an interview with D religious organization’s believers as a new D religious organization. A report containing the same content as that set forth in attached Table 3 was made in the broadcast program; the same month;

7. In the same program, he/she first presented H with respect to the same content in the same form, and reported the same in the same form, including the same content as shown in attached Table 4.

(hereinafter “instant report”). The summary of the Plaintiff’s content broadcasted from the instant report was “D religious organization’s believers, the Plaintiff, working as an incumbent police officer, illegally inspected and did not conduct the instant report, and searched his/her residence without a warrant.”

C. After the report of this case, the Plaintiff was summoned to the inspector of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency immediately after the report of this case, and was investigated on June 9, 2014; the investigation of the Seoul Guro Police Station and the J Team; the same year.

7. 10. In other words, personnel management was taken by the same police station’s life safety and police box.

2. The Plaintiff was investigated by the prosecution on the suspicion that “In order to search for L, the Plaintiff, a son of H around February 21, 2010, searched M’s house without permission by using police officers’ status, and thereby committing the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights and obstructing another’s exercise of rights and obstructing another’s residence, etc.,” but the Plaintiff also sustained injury from D religious organization’s believers.