Key Ruling

The Korean Supreme Court ruled that:

Even if a media report about a public official is false,

It may not be considered illegal (defamation) if:

It was made for the public interest, and

There were reasonable grounds to believe it was true.



The Court overturned (reversed) the lower court ruling and sent the case back for retrial.



—

Background

Broadcaster MBC reported in April 2020 on allegations that former Deputy Prime Minister Choi Kyung-hwan invested in a company (ShillaGen).

The report was based on a written interview with a former investment firm CEO.

It claimed:

Choi invested 500 million KRW in his own name, and

50–60 billion KRW through others (borrowed names).




—

Lower Court Decisions

Trial Court (1st instance):

Found the report false.

Ruled MBC acted recklessly without sufficient verification.

Ordered MBC to pay 20 million KRW in damages.


Appellate Court:

Upheld the same ruling and compensation.




—

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court agreed that:

The report was false.


However, it ruled that:

The report could still be lawful if it meets certain conditions.



Key Reasoning

The allegations involved:

A public official’s integrity and financial conduct, which is a matter of public interest.


The report:

Aimed to monitor and criticize a public official.

Was framed as raising suspicions, not stating confirmed facts.

Included:

Denials and counterarguments from related parties.



Given the context:

It is possible the broadcaster believed the claims were true, and

That belief may have had reasonable grounds.




—

Legal Standard Established

A defamatory statement may avoid illegality if:

It concerns a matter of public interest, and

The publisher had reasonable grounds to believe it was true, even if later proven false.



—

Legal Significance

Strengthens press freedom in reporting on public officials.

Confirms that:

Truth is not the only defense in defamation cases.

Good faith + public interest + reasonable belief can also protect journalists.


Sets an important standard balancing:

Reputation rights vs. freedom of the press and public scrutiny.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=217673