Civil Broadcasting (Law Firm Lee & Lee, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Communications Commission (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Lee Hy-ri, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 27, 2015

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap28954 decided August 28, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. Each sanction order (No. 2013-225 of the Broadcasting Deliberation and No. 2013-226 of the Broadcasting Deliberation) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on August 21, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8

【Supplementary Judgment】

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the broadcast of this case constitutes a historical documentary program at the trial and its historical facts are interpreted and reconstructed based on such perspective on the premise of a certain point of view. Therefore, even if the possibility of different interpretation or the position was not reflected, it shall not be deemed as the ground for the fairness and objectivity of broadcast. According to the contents and purport of the provisions on the Broadcasting Act and the Broadcasting Deliberation, a broadcasting business operator is obliged to maintain the fairness and objectivity of broadcast and to comply with public responsibilities. In particular, when dealing with social issues or conflicts of interest, it should maintain the fairness and balance and reflect the opinions of the relevant parties in a balanced manner. Such obligations are not exempted even if the relevant broadcast was conducted in a historical documentary form. In full view of the specific contents, composition and form of each broadcast of this case recognized by the evidence admitted earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no infringement of the Plaintiff’s right to a new historical point of view or a new point of view in view of the content and form of the instant disposition, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the extent that it did not exist.

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed on the ground that it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

Judges Kim Il-tae (Presiding Judge)