South Korea’s Constitutional Court unanimously overturned prosecutors’ decision to grant a suspended indictment against an SBS Unanswered Questions (그것이 알고싶다) Producer who broadcast unaltered photos of Jeong-in, a child who died from abuse.

The producer had been accused of violating the Child Abuse Punishment Act’s media reporting ban, which restricts disclosure of a victim child’s identity.


Background of the Case

In January 2021, the program aired Jeong-in’s face, birth year, and related footage, prompting a civic group complaint.

Police (May 2022) and prosecutors (September 2022) initially found no charges.

After a further appeal by the complainant, prosecutors reopened the case and issued a suspended indictment in June 2023.

The producer filed a constitutional complaint, arguing the decision violated equality and the right to pursue happiness.


Constitutional Court’s Ruling

The Court held the broadcast constituted a justifiable act with lawfulness negated due to:

Legitimate purpose and proportional means,

Alignment with the best interests of the child, and

Protection under freedom of the press.


It emphasized the program’s role in:

Memorializing the victim,

Presenting accurate facts amid the perpetrator’s denial,

Arguing the crime warranted murder charges, not lesser offenses,

Critiquing institutional failures despite repeated abuse reports, and

Calling for systemic reforms and prevention.



Safeguards and Editorial Care

The broadcast minimized exposure of third parties, used blurring where appropriate, and subjected materials to expert review.

The Court noted cooperation from Jeong-in’s former foster caregiver, who supported disclosure to reveal the truth.


Balancing Privacy and Public Interest

While reaffirming the need to protect a deceased child’s dignity and private sphere, the Court found that:

Thorough truth-finding and accountability best serve the victim’s interests,

The broadcast avoided sensationalism and did not distort the child’s life.



Why This Decision Matters

Sets a clear precedent that media reporting bans are not absolute.

Confirms that public-interest journalism, when careful and proportionate, can override disclosure prohibitions.

Reinforces the judiciary’s recognition of the press as a watchdog in child abuse cases, especially where institutional oversight failed.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/Case-curation/214353