KBS reporters appeal damages ruling, citing press freedom violation

Two KBS reporters, who were ordered to pay damages for reporting on a conglomerate chairman's past fraud conviction alongside ongoing fraud investigations, have filed a constitutional appeal, asserting their press freedom has been violated.

The reporters appealed to the Constitutional Court after their case was sent to a full panel review. In June 2023, they reported on allegations of improper lobbying by Han Ju-hee, chairman of Han & Brothers and the largest shareholder of Bodyfriend, and also revealed his past fraud conviction. Han sued the reporters for defamation, seeking 1.2 billion won in damages. In April, the Supreme Court finalized a ruling ordering the reporters to pay 5 million won and 10 million won respectively.

The court found the reporters liable for defamation specifically concerning the reporting of Han's past fraud conviction. The ruling stated that by reporting Han's past conviction concurrently with details of the ongoing fraud investigation, the reporters created an impression of guilt for the viewers. The court also noted that it was difficult to conclude that reporting the past conviction fell within the legitimate scope of journalistic activities, such as monitoring, criticizing, or checking public officials or institutions.

“

The court's final ruling violates the principle of proportionality and infringes upon our freedom of the press, posing a threat to the exercise of media and publication rights.

In their appeal, the reporters argued that the court's final ruling violates the principle of proportionality and infringes upon their freedom of the press, posing a threat to the exercise of media and publication rights. They contend that the court's decision excessively restricts journalistic reporting.

The Constitutional Court stated that the full panel will examine various issues, including the meaning and scope of 'public interest' that exempts civil liability for defamation based on factual claims. It will also consider the criteria for balancing press freedom with personal rights when anonymously disclosing past convictions in documentary programs. Since the implementation of the 재판소원 (re-trial appeal) system on March 12, 1075 cases have been filed, with 9 being referred to the full Constitutional Court panel.

“

It was difficult to conclude that reporting the past conviction fell within the legitimate scope of journalistic activities, such as monitoring, criticizing, or checking public officials or institutions.