All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged facts as indicated in its reasoning, and, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, determined that the part concerning the No. 1 and No. 2 issues in the instant report cannot be deemed false, and that there was no legitimate interest in requesting the Plaintiffs to make a corrective report.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court acknowledged facts as indicated in its reasoning, and, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, determined that the part concerning the reason for not guilty of defamation in the report of the instant case cannot be seen as false.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles, the aforementioned determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

3. As to the third ground for appeal, the lower court acknowledged facts as indicated in its reasoning, and, based on the circumstances set out in its reasoning, determined that the part of the instant report stating “if the core issues are false, they will lose fairness,” only constitutes an expression of opinion of the Defendant, but it is difficult to regard it as a factual assertion.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the distinction

4. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning, and reported the instant apology and report.