CONTENTS
- 1. Defamation by False Statements, Understanding the Case
- 2. Defamation by False Statements, the Lower Court's Determination
- - Defamation by False Statements, the Supreme Court's Precedents Regarding Members of the Press
- 3. Defamation by False Statements, the Supreme Court's Determination
- 4. Defamation by False Statements, Daeryun's Strategy?
1. Defamation by False Statements, Understanding the Case
A former member of the National Assembly filed a criminal complaint against reporters, alleging defamation by false statements.
The plaintiff, a former member of the National Assembly, sought damages on the ground that the reporters had committed defamation by writing articles containing content contrary to the facts, and he requested the deletion of the articles.
The key issues in this case were whether the articles stated false facts and whether their unlawfulness was established.
2. Defamation by False Statements, the Lower Court's Determination
This is the lower court's determination on whether a tort was established in the defamation by false statements lawsuit.
The lower court took the view that, even where a person's reputation is harmed by stating facts through the press or publication, the act is not unlawful if the statement is a true fact and relates solely to the public interest.
The lower court found that the article in question contained no specific basis regarding the plaintiff's conduct and therefore constituted a false fact.
However, it determined that the plaintiff was a public figure who had served as a member of the National Assembly on several occasions, and that the content of each article in this case concerned the past conduct of a public figure, which continually calls for evaluation and verification, as well as the assessment of that conduct.
The court also found that the defendants faced difficulty in accessing objective materials by which they could investigate the facts regarding the plaintiff's series of trial proceedings as described in the article.
The lower court took the view that, depending on the perspective from which they were interpreted, the plaintiff's statements at the trial dates and the content recorded in the written statement in this case were open to differing interpretations.
The lower court held that, although there had been other articles of a similar purport before the article in this case, the plaintiff had not actively responded to them, so the defendants had substantial grounds to believe the content was true.
Defamation by False Statements, the Supreme Court's Precedents Regarding Members of the Press
The truthfulness of a news report means that, when the overall purport of its content is examined, the important parts accord with objective facts; a report is not to be regarded as untruthful merely because it differs slightly from the truth in matters of detail or contains somewhat exaggerated expressions (See Supreme Court, Decision of January 22, 2002, 2000 Da 37524, 37531; Supreme Court, Decision of March 23, 2006, 2003 Da 52142; Supreme Court, Decision of September 6, 2007, 2007 Da 2275, etc.).
In the process of simplifying complex facts to make them easier to understand by compressing or emphasizing certain particular facts, or of adding embellishment to the actual facts in order to attract the interest of the public, even if there is some rhetorical exaggeration, the truthfulness of the report is recognized if, viewed in the overall context, the important parts of the reported content accord with the truth (See Supreme Court, Decision of September 6, 2007, 2007 Da 2275; Supreme Court, Decision of July 23, 2015, 2014 Da 28121; Supreme Court, Decision of October 12, 2018, 2014 Da 5188, etc.)
3. Defamation by False Statements, the Supreme Court's Determination
Dissatisfied with the lower court's determination on defamation by false statements, the plaintiff filed a final appeal.
The Supreme Court determined as follows: “The lower court's determination, which did not recognize liability for damages in tort for defamation, is acceptable. The lower court's determination contains no error affecting the judgment, such as exceeding the limits of the principle of free evaluation of evidence contrary to logic and the rules of experience without conducting the necessary examination, or misapprehending the legal principles regarding the statement of false facts and the grounds precluding the unlawfulness of defamation, violating the duty of clarification, or containing contradictory reasoning, as asserted in the grounds of final appeal.”
On these grounds, the Supreme Court held, for the same reasons as the lower court, that the act of publishing each article in this case could not be regarded as unlawful, and that the plaintiff's claim for deletion of the articles could not be granted.
4. Defamation by False Statements, Daeryun's Strategy?
Defamation by false statements requires a case-by-case legal review, as the governing statutory provisions are abstract and the precedents are varied.
The courts hold that, even where a person's reputation is harmed by stating facts through the press and publication, the act is not unlawful if the statement is a true fact relating to the public interest.
Whether the stated facts relate to the public interest must be determined by comparing and weighing the degree of potential harm to reputation, taking into account the specific content, the scope of the persons to whom the publication was made, and the manner of expression.
The determination must further consider whether the person whose reputation was harmed is a public figure, and must comprehensively examine whether the stated facts relate to a field of public activity or carry public and social significance such that public discussion of them is warranted.
The Criminal Group of Daeryun Law Firm LLP is led by attorneys experienced in criminal matters with experience as former judges, prosecutors, and police officers, who draw on extensive trial and investigation experience to provide client-tailored legal services from the early stages of a case.
Depending on the client's circumstances and the scale of the case, the firm also forms a task force of 3 to 20 specialists to analyze the investigation records, gather necessary evidence, and provide a tailored response strategy.
