KBS journalists facing civil liability for defamation related to reporting on Han Joo-hee, chairman of Han & Brothers, have had their request to annul a Supreme Court ruling accepted for review by the Constitutional Court.
On June 23, the Constitutional Court announced that it would hear the case (2026헌마1776) after a preliminary review by a designated panel, which determined that the journalists' appeal warranted consideration by the full court.
The designated panel typically dismisses cases that are clearly inadmissible, indicating that the Constitutional Court sees significant constitutional value in this matter.
The KBS journalists reported on Han Joo-hee from June 8 to June 17, 2023, in connection with allegations of embezzlement involving a large sum of money disguised as lobbying. They highlighted Han's previous fraud convictions and his connections with high-ranking officials. On September 12 of the same year, they aired a documentary that anonymously reiterated these points.
In response, Han's legal team claimed that KBS's reports contained false statements and invaded his privacy, filing a civil lawsuit seeking 1.2 billion won (approximately $1 million) in damages against the journalists.
Court rulings varied. The Seoul Central District Court initially held KBS reporter A liable for 5 million won of the claimed damages, while the Seoul High Court later increased this amount to 10 million won. Conversely, reporter B, who participated in the documentary, was fully exonerated in the first trial but was later found partially liable for 10 million won in the appellate court.
The appellate court ruled that three out of four reported facts were not defamatory or invasive of privacy, deeming them matters of public interest. However, it found that the anonymous disclosure of Han's past criminal record in the documentary constituted defamation.
On April 30, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's ruling, dismissing the journalists' appeals. Following this, the journalists filed a constitutional review on June 2, arguing that the ruling negatively impacts public trust in the nation's civil service and serves the public interest.
They contended that prioritizing Han's personal rights over journalistic responsibility stifles legitimate media activities and threatens overall press freedom, violating the constitutional principle of proportionality.
A Constitutional Court official stated, "The full court will examine various issues, including the meaning and scope of 'public interest' in defamation cases and the balance between freedom of the press and personal rights regarding the anonymous disclosure of criminal records in the documentary."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.