The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if a certain article of the press impairs another person’s reputation, it is not unlawful if it is a matter of public interest where it is “for the sole purpose of the public interest” and its content is “a serious fact” or it is “a considerable reason to believe that it is a truth.”

Here, the phrase “for the sole purpose of the public interest” refers to an expression of fact for the public interest by objectively deeming the stated fact as being objectively related to the public interest. If the principal purpose or motive of the actor is for the public interest, it is unreasonable even if there are other private interest purposes or motives incidental thereto.

In addition, the term “afinite fact” means a fact that the important part is consistent with objective fact when examining the purport of the entire content, and it is difficult to say that there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression in the detail.

In addition, whether an actor has "reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the article are truth" should be determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as the contents of the alleged fact, the grounds for believing the truth as truth, the certainty and credibility of the material, the easiness of factual verification, the victim's damage caused by the article, etc., in order to verify the authenticity of the contents of the article, the determination of whether the actor has properly and sufficiently examined the contents of the article, and whether the authenticity thereof is supported by objective and reasonable materials or grounds.

On the other hand, setting limits between freedom of press publication and protection of reputation is different depending on whether the expressed contents relate to private relations or public relations.

The expression is a public existence or private existence of the victim due to the expression, and whether the expression concerns public interest or private sector.