[1] The requirements and criteria for determining whether the act of publication of suspected facts by an investigative agency is permissible

[2] The case holding that the prosecutor's publication of the suspected facts was illegal

[1] 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 by the prosecutor, the police or other duties related to criminal investigation, or by a person supervising or assisting the public. Article 198 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the public prosecutor, the judicial police officer or other persons related to investigation shall keep confidentiality and respect the human rights of the accused or other persons. Since an act of disclosure of a suspected fact by the investigative agency is based on the results of investigation by public authority and its contents may cause harm to the public or surrounding persons, taking into account that the disclosure of a suspected fact may not be made in a clear manner contrary to the objective and justifiable purpose of disclosure or announcement of the fact, the disclosure of the fact should be made in accordance with the objective and justifiable purpose of the public duty of disclosure.

[2] The case holding that where there is no direct evidence except the victim's statement, and the suspect strongly denies the suspected fact, and thus a reinforcement investigation is required, and it is difficult to see that the contents of the suspected fact are urgent enough to inform the people of it, the prosecutor's internal procedure is not followed by the expression showing the suspect's criminal act, but publicly announced the suspected fact against the reporters of each media company on the premise of reporting by the media, the illegality of the act of publishing the suspected fact is not denied.

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da10215, 10222 delivered on January 26, 199 (Gong1999Sang, 330)

Plaintiff

Korea

Changwon District Court Decision 2000Na4078 delivered on November 9, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first, second, and third grounds for appeal

The court below, based on its evidence, found that the strong division of Busan District Prosecutors' Office received intimidation from Nonparty 1 on April 1997 on the ground that he was not able to repay his gambling funds, and reported that he was punished by giving money and valuables of KRW 0,000 to him. The court below, upon Nonparty 1's information, arrested the plaintiff in the coffee shop with Nonparty 2 and 3 as a flagrant offender at around 16:0 of the same month, at around 17th of the same month, at around 18 p.m. on the 18 p.m. day immediately before the issuance of the warrant to the plaintiff, and confirmed that the plaintiff was arrested as an flagrant offender and prepared for the warrant request after being arrested as a flagrant offender at around 18 p.m. of the same month immediately before the issuance of the warrant to the plaintiff, Busan District Prosecutors' Office, and the prosecutor in charge explained the contents of the case so that the plaintiff's reputation was damaged by disclosing the fact that he was aware of in the course of his duties.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or the publication of suspected facts, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the fourth ground for appeal

A. The general public’s right to know about crimes committed in society and the investigative agency’s presentation of a suspected fact is one of the methods to satisfy these 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 public trial request is made. Article 198 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a public prosecutor, judicial police officer or other person in relation to investigation shall maintain confidentiality and respect the human rights of the accused or other persons. In addition, an act of publishing a suspected fact by an investigative agency shall be based on the results of an investigation by public authority and shall be based on the public trust of its contents to the public, and that an act of publishing it may cause fatal harm to the accused or other persons adjacent thereto, and that an act of publishing the suspected fact shall be based on objective and justifiable means of disclosure or announcement in the form of public interest to the public, and that there is a concern that the disclosure should be a public announcement of the fact or its disclosure in accordance with the objective and legitimate purpose of evidence.

In light of the records, at the time when the prosecutor in charge of April 18, 1997 announced the plaintiff's accusation against the plaintiff, the plaintiff's vehicle was confiscated with excessive, Seobbb, and multi-purpose knife at the time of questioning the plaintiff, and the non-party 1 stated that the plaintiff was one during the same month of questioning the plaintiff, but the non-party 1 stated that the investigation was conducted by the non-party 1's report on the 16th day of the same month before and after the date of arrest, and the plaintiff was only driving at the request of the non-party 2, who is the front line of the university. The plaintiff did not know of all the remaining facts. The non-party 3, who was arrested, recognized that he participated in the crime, was not guilty, but it is difficult to find the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 1's statement to the effect that the plaintiff was not guilty, and that the non-party 1, who was not guilty, was not guilty of his own evidence.

In the same context, the prosecutor cannot be deemed to have no suspicion that the plaintiff was involved in the crime in light of the victim's statement or the circumstances at the time of arresting the plaintiff at the time of publication of the fact of the crime. However, there is no direct evidence other than the victim's statement, and the plaintiff was strongly denied the fact of the crime while questioning the plaintiff, and thus the prosecutor should have revealed the credibility of the victim's statement through reinforcement investigation, etc. against the accomplice prior to publication of the fact of the crime. However, as long as the fact of the crime was disclosed without such investigation, it cannot be said that the prosecutor has secured objective and sufficient evidence to guarantee the truth of the crime at the time. Nevertheless, it appears that the prosecutor announced the fact of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the victim and used the expression that the plaintiff's act of the crime of the crime of the victim was confirmed, and the prosecutor has no possibility of disclosure to the reporter at the time of announcement of the fact of the crime of the crime of the crime of the victim, even if it is sufficiently difficult to expect mental harm or material harm caused by the defendant's.

Although the court below did not decide on the defendant's defense that the publication of the suspected facts of this case was dismissed as a legitimate act, as seen above, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted, so the error of the judgment of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The argument in the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)