(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.3.19.선고 2013가합52016 판결

1. The Defendant shall pay 15,00,000 won to the Plaintiff ○○, ○○, and ○○○, respectively, and 20% interest per annum from the following day to the day of full payment to the day of full payment to the Plaintiff △△△△△, respectively, for each of the KRW 1,00,000,000, and each of the KRW 5% interest per annum from September 5, 2012 to March 19, 2014, and from the next day to the day of full payment to the day of full payment.

2. A. The defendant will delete all news listed in the list Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 posted on the defendant's Internet homepage within 7 days from the date the judgment of this case became final and conclusive.

B. If the Defendant fails to perform the obligation described in the above paragraph (a) within the said period, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff Ansan○○ at the rate of KRW 1,00,000 per day from the day following the expiration of the period to the day of completion of the performance.

3. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

4. 2/3 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

5. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

Defendant 25,00,000 won for each of the 25,00,000 won for the Plaintiff’s Cho○ and Ansan, and 10,000,000 won for the Plaintiff’s Ansan, and the Plaintiff

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on September 5, 2012 on 5, 200, 200 won and each of the said money to the △△△△△, within the scope of 5,00 won.

Until the date of delivery of a complaint, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

D. The defendant's seal within seven days from the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive.

[Attachment 1. Each news listed in the List posted on thenet website shall be deleted. The defendant's duty shall be deleted.

If the defendant does not implement it within that period, the defendant shall have the expiration date set forth above to the plaintiff Ansan-○.

The following day shall pay 1,00,000 won each day from the following day to the completion date of the performance.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

Around August 30, 2012, 02: Around 00, the Plaintiff Ansan-si is a victim of sexual assault committed by kidnapping to Nonparty ○○○, who was caught by Nonparty 1 at the home. The Plaintiff Ansan-○, ○○, and ○○○ is the parent, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the △△△△△, the Plaintiff’s △△△△, and the Defendant is a broadcaster whose main business is broadcasting business, cultural service business, advertisement business, etc., and the Defendant is a broadcaster with the news report “○○”, which provides services, such as news and re-news (the Defendant maintains and manages the news report).

B. On August 30, 2012, 01: 00, ○○, upon hearing the statement that the Plaintiff ○○ was under the influence of drinking at home when talking with the PC located in the city where around 00, and the Plaintiff ○○ was under the influence of drinking at home. The Plaintiff ○○ entered the PC’s house where the Plaintiff ○ sent time to the PC, and attempted to engage in rape, and the Defendant 2 was under the influence of committing the instant crime (i.e., committing the instant crime, hereinafter “the Defendant 1 was under the influence of committing the instant crime”), and the Defendant 1 was under the influence of committing the instant crime, including the Defendant ○○’s father’s care, and the Defendant 2 was under the influence of committing the instant crime. The Defendant 1 was under the influence of committing the instant crime, and the Defendant 2 was under the influence of committing the instant crime, and was under the influence of committing the instant crime, hereinafter “the Defendant 1 was under the influence of committing the instant crime.”

C. The Defendant’s news report 1) sent to the 0th anniversary of the Defendant’s internal news on August 30, 201. The Defendant sent to the 3rd anniversary of the Defendant’s internal news on the 4th anniversary of the Defendant’s 0th anniversary of the Defendant’s internal news on the 1st anniversary of the instant broadcast program. The Defendant, on the 6th anniversary of the Defendant’s 2nd anniversary of the Defendant’s internal news on the 6th anniversary of the Defendant’s 3rd anniversary of the Defendant’s internal news on the 5th anniversary of the fact that the 6th anniversary of the Defendant’s internal news on the 1st day of the instant broadcast program, was recorded on the 6th anniversary of the Defendant’s internal news on the 1st day of the instant broadcast program (the 2nd day of this case’s news on the 6th anniversary of the Defendant’s internal news on the 1st day of this case’s news on the 1st day of the instant broadcast.

4 ) 피고는 2012. 9. 1. ' 뉴스 ○ ' 프로그램에서 단독 / 고○○ 범행 피해자 이양, 안타까운 상처 남아 」 라는 제목하에 별지 5. 기재 뉴스를 방영하면서, 원고 안□□ 이 이 사건 범죄로 말미암아 입은 상처 사진 5장 ( 배, 옆구리, 허벅지, 얼굴 정면 ( 눈코입 부분만 모자이크 처리가 되어 있다 ), 얼굴 측면 ( 눈코입 부분만 모자이크 처리가 되어 있다 ) 의 영상을 내보냈다 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 제4뉴스 ' 라 한다 ) . 5 ) 피고는 2012. 9. 2. ' 뉴스 O ' 프로그램에서 「 죄책감 없이 " 죽고싶다 " 라는 제목하에 [ 초등학생 성폭행 피의자 고○○과 피해 어린이 양의 어머니는 PC방에서 만나 서로 친분이 있는 사이였습니다. ○양의 어머니가 PC방에 아이들을 데리고 오면 진짜 삼촌처럼 행동했습니다. ( 인터뷰 : 고○○ 첫 제보자 ) " 잘 대해줬죠, 애들한테. 애엄마가 가끔가다 애들을 PC방에 데려오면 예뻐해 주고 과자라도 하나 사준다든가 …. " ]라는 내용이 포함된 별지 6. 기재 뉴스를 방영하였다 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 제5뉴스 ' 라 한다 ) . 6 ) 피고는 2012. 9. 3. ' 뉴스 ○ ' 프로그램에서 " 충격 딛고 건강 호전 " 」 이라는 제목하에 별지 7. 기재 뉴스를 방영하면서, 원고 안□□이 이 사건 범죄로 말미암아 입은 상처 사진 6장 ( 얼굴 측면, 배, 허벅지, 손목, 옆구리, 얼굴 정면 ( 풀어헤친 상체 윗 부분 포함 ), 얼굴 사진 2장은 얼굴 부분에 심한 모자이크 처리가 되어있다 ) 의 영상을 내보냈다 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 제6뉴스 ' 라 한다 ) .

7) The Defendant, in the news program “O” on September 4, 2012, broadcasted the news as indicated in attached Form 8 under the title “Ch. one month prior to the date.” The Defendant sent the images of two copies (including the face part (including the part on the face part) of the upper part of the Defendant’s body, and face) of the upper part (hereinafter “instant news 7”, and all of the news Nos. 1 through 7 are referred to as “the news of this case”).

8) The news Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of this case are published in the news category among the Internet homepages operated by the defendant (the news No. 4 of this case is currently not published on the above website).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including Serial number), Eul evidence 4-1 and Eul evidence 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Defamation;

① The Defendant: (a) reported that the Plaintiff ○○ was responsible for providing the cause of the instant crime; and (b) reported that the Plaintiff ○○ appears to have been friendly with ○○○○, thereby making it possible for misunderstanding the relationship between Plaintiff ○○ and ○○○, thereby impairing the Plaintiffs’ honor.

B. Infringement of portrait rights, personality rights, and privacy

① The Defendant infringed upon the Plaintiffs’ residence, ② the location of the Plaintiffs’ house, ③ the images of the images of the Plaintiff’s house and the inner structure of the house, ④ the pictures of the Plaintiff’s injuries, thereby infringing on the Plaintiffs’ privacy, freedom and personality rights, and the portrait rights of the Plaintiff’s Ansan.

C. tort liability

The Defendant is liable for damages for the mental distress of the Plaintiffs caused by tort, such as defamation and freedom of privacy, and thus, shall pay 25,00,000,000 won to the Plaintiff, ○○○○○, and Ansan, respectively, to the Plaintiff, 15,00,000 won, 4,000,000,000 won, and damages for delay thereof to the Plaintiff, △△△△, and △△△△, respectively. Furthermore, each news listed in the separate sheet 1, as appropriate disposition for the restoration of the Plaintiffs’ reputation

3. Whether tort liability arises

A. Whether defamation is established

1) General theory

In order to establish defamation by news reports of the media, a statement of facts must be made by a specific statement of facts that may undermine the victim's social evaluation. Here, the expression of facts is not limited to cases where a direct expression of facts is made, but it is sufficient to suggest the existence of such facts in light of the overall purport of the expression, even in cases of indirect and round-up expressions, and thereby, are likely to infringe a specific person's social value or evaluation. In addition, whether the contents of a television broadcast report contain any content that impairs a specific person's reputation should be determined based on the overall impression of the report in light of the overall flow of the report, screen composition method, ordinary meaning of the words used and the connection method of phrases, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53387, Feb. 27, 2004, etc.).

The Defendant, through the news Nos. 2 and 3 of this case, committed the crime immediately after the Defendant met the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○ in the PC. Plaintiff ○○○ was well aware of Plaintiff ○○○○, and the reason why there was suspicion that ○○○○○ was finding the PC for committing the crime rather than for games. On the day of committing the crime, the Defendant’s high ○○ computer access records are merely 0:47:00 to 13:26:0,000, and high ○○○○○○ was merely 13:00,000,000, and it was difficult to view that the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○ was responsible for committing the crime as the place of the crime after checking that ○○○○○ was on this spot. However, the Defendant’s assertion that it was difficult to deem the remainder of the facts alleged by the Plaintiffs as constituting an individual news report and that it did not constitute the Plaintiff’s grounds for disclosure of the facts.

As seen earlier, through the news Nos. 2 and 5 of this case, the Defendant stated the following facts: “Seoul ○○ was scambling Plaintiff scam in the PC room, and Plaintiff scambling in the PC room, and Plaintiff scambling in the PC room, and Plaintiff scambling in the PC, and Plaintiff scambling in the PC, ○○○○ and scamboming in the PC.” In full view of the overall purport, context, etc. of each of the above news, each of the above news is deemed to have undermined the social evaluation of the Plaintiffs, including Plaintiff scambling in the PC○○, thereby impairing honor.

B. Whether the illegality of defamation is denied

1) The defendant's assertion

Of the news of this case, the part pointed out by the plaintiffs is public interest as the purpose of the report of this case, and its content is true, and even if not, there is considerable reason to believe that it is true. 2) Even if the media used the media to release facts to the public for the purpose of the public interest, if the purpose is solely for the public interest, it shall be deemed that the actor believed it to be true or there is no reasonable reason to believe it, even if the stated fact is proved to be true or there is no proof to prove it. Thus, the phrase "when the purpose is solely for the public interest" refers to the expression of the fact for the public interest when it is objectively viewed as related to the stated fact, and it refers to the expression of the fact for the public interest. If the main purpose or motive of the actor is for the public interest, it is unreasonable to believe that it is true, and even if the main purpose or motive is stated, the phrase "real fact" in this case is somewhat different from the objective fact, 200 or 203.

In addition, the issue of whether an actor has a reasonable ground to believe the alleged truth shall be determined in light of the fact that the actor has conducted an adequate and sufficient investigation to verify the authenticity of the content thereof by taking into account various circumstances, such as the content of the alleged fact, the grounds for believing the truth as the truth, the certainty and credibility of the evidence, the easiness of confirmation of the fact, and the degree of damage to the victim caused by the timely statement. The truth is supported by objective and reasonable data or evidence. The time of determination shall be based on the point of expression, but even if it is judged at the time of expression, the authenticity and reasonableness at the time of expression can be determined by referring to the facts revealed before and after the expression, so evidence collected after the expression may also be used as evidence for its determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da5823, Jan. 24, 2008; 2008Da84236, Sept. 9, 2010).

B) However, in setting the limitation between the freedom of press and publication, there is a difference between whether the expression is a public figure or a private figure, whether the expression concerns a matter of public interest or a purely private sphere, whether the expression concerns a matter of public interest or a matter of public interest, and whether it contributes to the formation of public opinion or public debate as it concerns a matter of public nature or sociality that the citizen should know objectively, and whether the expression contributes to the formation of public opinion or public debate. In addition, if the expression concerns a matter of private sphere, the personality right to protection of reputation can take precedence over the freedom of the press, but if the expression concerns a matter of public and social meaning, it should be evaluated differently and the limitation on the freedom of the press should be mitigated (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da37524, 37531, Jan. 22, 2002).

In particular, in reporting a crime case, it is believed that the reporting of a crime case in the mass media generally critically follows the behavior of the crime, how the legal sanctions are realized when it violates the contents and the social norms, how the social and cultural conditions of the crime are clarified, and that the reporting of a crime case in the mass media plays the role of providing information necessary for the formation of public opinion by considering the social and cultural circumstances of the crime and considering the social measures therefor, etc. Therefore, the reporting of a crime case in the mass media can be treated as public nature. However, it is not necessary to clearly state the personal information of the victim of the crime or his/her family, and its reporting does not necessarily have the same character as the reporting of the crime itself, and in particular, it is more true in the case of reporting of a sexual assault victim and his/her family members who may suffer fatal secondary damage through a press report (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da17257, Jul. 14, 1998).

In light of the characteristics of the instant crime, etc. as seen earlier, the Defendant first examined whether the Plaintiff’s reputation was public interest by pointing out the fact that ○○ was in a close relationship with ○○○○○, and the facts about how much friendly between ○○○ and Plaintiff ○○○○○○ was inevitable to report the facts of the instant crime. As such, it should be acknowledged as a matter of public interest that the purpose of the instant report is for the sake of public interest. Furthermore, in full view of whether such facts are true, ○○○○ was friendly with Plaintiff 4, and ○○○○○○○○ operated by ○○○○ and ○○○○○, and the overall purport of the statements and arguments, i.e., the overall contents of the instant report and the overall contents of the report, i., e., the overall contents of the Plaintiff ○○’s speech and the overall contents of the report and the overall contents of the report, i.e., the overall contents of the report and the contents of the report, etc., can be seen from the objective facts.

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' arguments that the defendant reported each of the news of this case and damaged the reputation of the plaintiffs are without merit.

C. Whether personal rights are infringed, such as privacy, freedom, portrait, etc.

1) General theory

Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that "All citizens shall have dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness." Article 17 of the same Act provides that "All citizens shall not be infringed on privacy." Articles 316 and 317 of the Criminal Act provide that "the act of infringing or divulging certain individual secrets to protect the privacy and peace of individuals." In full view of these provisions, a person shall have the legal interest not to be disclosed to others without permission. Thus, the matters concerning the privacy of an individual shall be protected as a secret unless it is related to public interest, unless it is a matter of legitimate interest of the general public, and unfairly disclosing it constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da11327, Sept. 4, 1998, etc.). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant's act of infringing upon the plaintiffs' home by the defendant, but there is no reason to acknowledge that the defendant's internal nature of the news of this case is insufficient.

3) Disclosure of the collective location of the plaintiffs

As seen above, the defendant, through the news Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, disclosed the location of the plaintiffs' house belonging to the privacy area of the plaintiffs in satellite pictures without the plaintiffs' consent, thereby infringing on the plaintiffs' personality rights, such as privacy and freedom of privacy. 4) Disclosure of images, etc. taken inside the plaintiffs' house

As seen earlier, the defendant, through news Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of this case, disclosed the images of the plaintiffs' house in the private life sphere without the plaintiffs' consent, and the internal structure and drawings of the plaintiffs' house, thereby infringing on the plaintiffs' personality rights, such as privacy and freedom of privacy.

5) Disclosure of the scam of the Plaintiff’s injury

As seen earlier, the Defendant, through the news of this case 4, 6, and 7, disclosed the pictures of the Plaintiff’s Ma○○○, the parent of the Plaintiff, without the consent of Ma○○, and Ma○○○○, to the public, thereby infringing on the Plaintiffs’ personality rights, such as the Plaintiffs’ privacy and freedom of privacy. In particular, in the case of the news of this case 4, it is deemed that the Defendant infringed on the Plaintiff’s portrait right by disclosing the faces of the Plaintiff’s Ma○○, the Plaintiff’s Ma○, without the consent of Ma○○ and Ma○○

As seen earlier, the Defendant, through news Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 of this case, disclosed the Plaintiffs’ personal information, including the Plaintiff, who was the victim of sexual assault crime, such as the video photographic images indicating the location of the Plaintiffs’ house, satellite photographic images indicating the Plaintiffs’ house, and the trace of the Plaintiff’s injury, thereby infringing the Plaintiffs’ personality rights by allowing the victims of the instant crime and their families to identify themselves as the Plaintiffs immediately.

7) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the defendant, through each of the news of this case, disclosed the inside and the location of the plaintiffs' house and house, and trace of the harm of the plaintiffs' home, thereby infringing on the plaintiffs' personality rights, such as privacy and freedom, portrait rights, etc. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be held liable for tort accordingly.

D. Whether illegality against infringement of personal rights, such as privacy and freedom

1) The defendant's assertion

The contents of each of the news of this case, which the plaintiffs pointed out, are all necessary to explain the cause, background, field situation, etc. of the crime of this case, and to draw public opinion about child sexual assault cases, and was a report on public matters related to public interest, which are subject to legitimate public interest. The public interest to be achieved through such disclosure is larger than the damage that the plaintiffs will incur due to public interest, and there is no illegality. 2) The general theory is not unlawful.

In a case where a media organization reports a matter belonging to the private life of an individual, the illegality may be avoided if it is a matter of public interest in the matter of public concern. In addition, in a case where two different directions conflict surrounding the act of infringing privacy, the final illegality of the act of infringement is likely to be committed through a balancing of interests by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances in a specific case. In the course of balancing of interests, first, the factors that belong to the area of infringement include the content and importance of the profit to be achieved by the act of infringement, the necessity and effectiveness of the act of infringement, the supplement and effectiveness of the act of infringement, the reasonableness of the method of infringement, and second, the factors that belong to the area of the damaged interest are of the legal interest of damage.

There are the degree of damage suffered by victims of large sex and infringement and the protection value of damaged interest. On the other hand, the fact that the assessed act constitutes a tort by impairing the protection area of rights is not illegal should be proved by the claimant (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16280 Decided October 13, 2006, etc.).

In particular, in the news report of the same crime case as in the case of this case, it is believed that the report of the crime in the mass media generally seriously regulates the behavior of the crime, and in the event of violation of the contents of the social norms and their contents, the legal sanctions against the victim of the sexual crime and his family members are realized, and furthermore, it is believed that the report of the crime in the mass media play the role of providing information necessary for the formation of public opinion by clarifying the social and cultural conditions of the crime and considering the social measures against it. Therefore, the report of the crime in the mass media can be treated as a case where the public interest is the subject of legitimate public interest. However, it is not necessarily necessary to clearly state the personal information of the victim or his family members in order to report the crime itself, and it is not necessary to say that the report has the character such as the report on the crime itself, and in particular, it is more true in the case of the report on the victim of the sexual crime and his family members which may suffer fatal second damage through the media (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da17257).

As seen earlier, among the contents that the Defendant reported the plaintiffs' privacy sphere, it was unique that the crime of this case was captured without any interference with the plaintiff's family members, and therefore, the explanation of the plaintiffs' internal structure was essential in reporting the process during which the crime of this case was committed, and considering the fact that the internal structure of the plaintiffs' internal structure reported by the defendant was very simple and easy, and the degree of infringement caused by disclosure is minor, it can be deemed that the information about the plaintiffs' private life sphere, which is the object of legitimate public interest, is published in a considerable way. Thus, even if there was a partial infringement of the plaintiffs' personal rights such as the plaintiffs' privacy and freedom of privacy, it should be acceptable for the plaintiffs to view that the above report' internal structure of the plaintiffs' internal structure was made public.

According to the following circumstances, i.e., ① the Plaintiff’s internal living condition and specific atmosphere revealed the Plaintiff’s home (such as the Plaintiff’s television viewing mode), ② neighboring residents could have identified the Defendant’s home location of the Defendant, the victim of the instant crime and his family members through pictures showing the Plaintiffs’ home location with the pictures taken outside the Plaintiff’s home and satellite pictures (it is limited even if the location of the Plaintiff’s house was revealed in the process of investigation such as on-site inspection, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s home location was disclosed to the general public for that reason). ③ The Defendant’s photograph taken of the Plaintiff’s home cannot be seen as lawful, i.e., the Defendant’s photograph that was exposed to the Plaintiff’s inner injury to the Defendant’s home, and (i) the Defendant’s photograph could not be disclosed to the public through the Defendant’s Internet homepage, and (ii) the Defendant could not be seen as having disclosed the Plaintiff’s face of the Plaintiff’s home without any s/he/she was exposed to the Plaintiff’s body.

In full view of the above circumstances, matters pertaining to the plaintiffs' privacy, which the defendant disclosed through each of the news of this case, do not fall under the category of inevitably disclosed to the public in order to explain the background of the crime of this case, and even if the crime of this case itself constitutes a public issue, it is difficult to deem that the plaintiffs merely constitute a private person as the victim of the crime of this case, but does not constitute a public figure, and it does not constitute a public figure only due to the crime of this case. Thus, it is difficult to recognize that it constitutes a matter subject to legitimate public interest. Even if the disclosed matters are included in a legitimate public concern, such interest does not exceed the personal interest of the plaintiffs, such as the freedom of privacy.

In addition, the inside of the plaintiffs' house is not a place open to the general public, but the attitude of protecting the plaintiffs' private life relations is highly valuable. Accordingly, the damaged areas of the plaintiffs can be seen as belonging to a very secret area among their privacy. The situation and location of the plaintiffs' house' home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's situation and location of the plaintiffs' home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home's home'

Furthermore, the photograph taken of the trace of the Plaintiff’s bodily injury can be deemed to fall under the highest privacy area even among the private life areas, and it is deemed that such photograph is made open to the public by the Plaintiff, Ma○○○○, and the artist, and it is no longer justified for the Defendant’s disclosure of the photograph taken to the general public through the report for any public purpose, in that such a photograph was caused by sexual assault.

Therefore, the above part of the report by the defendant is illegal because it infringes on the personality rights, such as the plaintiffs' privacy and freedom of privacy, and in particular, the portrait rights of the plaintiff Ansan-gu.

5) Sub-decisions

Thus, the defendant cannot avoid tort liability due to the news reports of this case against the plaintiffs within the scope of recognition as above, such as privacy and freedom, and infringement of portrait rights.

【The following table is summarized as to the establishment of defamation of each of the news of this case, the secrecy and freedom of privacy, and the result of judgment as to the infringement of portrait rights]

1. Defamation 2. Infringement of privacy and freedom; 4. Details and scope of tort liability

A. Damages 1) The plaintiffs' tort is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiffs suffered considerable mental suffering due to the infringement of their personal rights, such as privacy, freedom, portrait rights, etc., and therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay monetary injury to the plaintiffs. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged in addition to the overall purport of the arguments adopted earlier, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 2,50,000, KRW 15,000, KRW 00, KRW 15,000, KRW 1,000, KRW 1,000, inside, inside, and outside, the plaintiff, and KRW △△△△△△, respectively.

① At the time when the instant crime was committed by ○○○ had invaded on the family house at one night, the instant crime took place six years of age with the victim at the same time, and attempted to murder the victim, to stroke the victim, to stroke the victim’s death, and to conceal the crime, and attempted to do so. However, due to the crime, the victim suffered bodily, mental pain, or family stroke, without any precedent. As a result, the method of the crime was cruel and cruel without any precedent, and there is also a considerable mental shock in the pipe of the victim’s physical, mental impulse, or its family.

A press organization needs to analyze and report the motive or consequence of a crime not only the progress or result of a crime but also the reason why such a cruel crime does not occur. It is inevitable to infringe on the victim's privacy on a public-interest-based report. However, the crime of this case is a serious criminal act that is not justified for any reason. The crime of this case is a serious criminal act that is not justified for any reason, and the victim and his family members are more shock. Thus, even if a report is made at a public-interest level, infringement on the victim and his family's private area is limited to the minimum necessary, and it is unnecessary and excessive infringement is not allowed.

③ 그런데 이 사건의 경우 피고는 원고들의 집 위치를 파악할 수 있는 위성 사진 영상뿐 아니라 그 내부의 흐트러진 모습이 훤히 들여다보이는 영상을 그대로 보도하였고, 심지어는 범행으로 상해를 입은 피해자의 여러 신체부위 ( 얼굴, 배, 팔다리 등 ) 를 촬영한 사진까지도 자극적으로 보도함으로써 ( 일부 사진의 경우에는 모자이크 처리가 미흡하여 피해자의 얼굴이 특정 가능할 정도로 드러났다 ), 공익적 범죄 보도 차원에서의 허용범위를 벗어나 피해자와 그 가족의 사적 영역을 불필요하고 과도하게 침해하였으며, 또한 보도 과정에서 어느 경우에도 정당화될 수 없는 이 사건 범죄의 원인 일부가 마치 피해자 측에 있다는 인상을 주기까지 하였다 .

④ However, each of the reports of this case was conducted in the process of coverage of the crime of this case without a prior review and analysis of the cause of the crime of this case, and was derived from the public interest purpose of preventing the recurrence of the same crime. At that time, only public interest or public interest has emerged, and such reports are not likely to cause defamation or privacy infringement on the victim of the crime, and in the case of conflict of interest, where the report should be made, it seems that no careful consideration has been given to the fact that the report of this case was made in the process of coverage of the crime of this case, and that the report of this case was made voluntarily by a press organization, etc. in consideration of the reflect of such circumstances after each of the reports of this case (the ○○ newspaper was established (the 2012 newspaper company).

10. On December 17, 2012, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea and the Korea National Self-Governing Organization established a "working rule on sexual assault report" among media companies. Accordingly, the Defendant, as consolation money, has a duty to pay 2,500,000 won to the Plaintiff, within ○○○, and to pay △△△△ for 15,00,000, within △△△, within △△△△, and each of the above amounts within 1,000 won, as compensation money, to the Plaintiff, within △△△△, and for △△△△△, as requested by the Plaintiffs after the date of tort, 1,00,000 won, and 1,000,000 won, and 1,000,000 won, from September 5, 2012 to March 19, 2014.

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff was suffering from considerable mental distress due to the Defendant’s unlawful acts that infringed on the Defendant’s personality rights, such as privacy, freedom, portrait rights, etc. Of the Internet homepage operated by the Defendant even as of the closing date of the pleadings of this case, the news of this case 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7

Since the facts posted in the news category are as seen earlier, the status of infringement on the plaintiffs' personality rights is currently ongoing, and in order to eliminate this, the plaintiffs may request the defendant to suspend such infringement (see, e.g., Article 764 of the Civil Act, Article 30(3) and (4) of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da60950, Mar. 28, 2013).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to delete each news (the instant news Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7) listed in [Attachment 1] List Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7, for which the illegality of the act of infringement among each news published on the above website is so large that it is necessary to delete. Furthermore, the Defendant is ordered to order the Defendant to pay indirect compulsory performance calculated at the rate of KRW 1,00,000 per day until the day when the said obligation is fulfilled, as compulsory performance of the above obligation against the Defendant, to the Defendant, by one day.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant against the defendant is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Judges Lee Jong-ho and Lee Jae-ho

Judge Lee Jin-hun

Judges Loyle

Note tin

1) As to the instant crime, ○○○○ violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

half (Kidnapping and inducement) Except for the cases where part of the facts charged is modified due to the changes in indictment after being prosecuted due to crimes such as abduction and intrusion upon residence, the whole charges shall be paid.

The final appeal by ○○ on February 27, 2014 was dismissed, thereby making it known to the public for life and for ten years, and tracking locations for thirty years.

The judgment of ordering the attachment of electronic device and the pharmacologic treatment for five years was finalized (Seoul District Court 2012 High Court 2012 High Court 942, 2012 High Court 1164

(Consolidation), Jeon 2012, Jeon 26, 2013 and 1 (Joints), Gwangju High Court 2013No100, 12 (Joints), 2013 No. 2013, 2013, 2013 No. 2013 (Joints), 2013

Court Decision 2013Do660, 2013Do 137, 2013Do 137, 2013Do 1 (Joint), Gwangju High Court 2013No387, 2013 No. 61 (Joint) and 2013

No. 3 (Consolidation), Supreme Court Decision 2013Do12301, Supreme Court Decision 252 (Consolidation), 2013 Do2013 (Joint) and 2 (Joint))

2) Although the news No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of this case were submitted as Gap evidence No. 3, the original film No. 4 of this case is submitted. However, the original film No. 4 of this case is submitted.

There are no images, but some images are submitted to Gap 5.

3) It is difficult to deem such fact to have been indicated.

4) The main contents of the above news report rules, etc. are as shown in attached Form 9.

5) The present is not contained in the Defendant’s home page.

6) Broadcasting of news ○○ program (the news of this case No. 1) on August 30, 2012

7) Broadcasting of news ○○ program (the news of this case No. 2) on August 31, 2012

8) Broadcasting of the news “O” program on September 1, 2012 (the instant news No. 3)

19) Broadcasting of the news “O” program on September 1, 2012 (the news of this case No. 4)

10) Broadcasting of the news “O” program on September 2, 2012 (the news of this case No. 5)

11) Broadcasting of the news “O” program on September 3, 2012 (the news of this case No. 6)

12) Broadcasting of the news “O” program on September 4, 2012 (the news of this case No. 7)

Site of separate sheet

A person shall be appointed.

참조조문

-언론중재 및 피해구제 등에 관한 법률 제30조 제3항

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

-형법 제316조

-형법 제317조

참조판례

-대법원 1998. 7. 14. 선고 96다17257 판결

-대법원 1998. 9. 4. 선고 96다11327 판결

-대법원 2002. 1. 22. 선고 2000다37524,37531 판결

-대법원 2004. 2. 27. 선고 2001다53387 판결

-대법원 2006. 10. 13. 선고 2004다16280 판결

-대법원 2006. 3. 23. 선고 2003다52142 판결

-대법원 2008. 1. 24. 선고 2005다58823 판결

-대법원 2010. 9. 9. 선고 2008다84236 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.3.19.선고 2013가합50737 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.3.19.선고 2013가합50317 판결

-대법원 2013. 6. 27. 선고 2012다31628 판결

-대법원 2012.9.13.선고 2012다45528 판결

-대법원 2006. 10. 13. 선고 2004다16280 판결