6
Likewise, a total of 22 prosecutors filed a 2.2-billion-won (US$2.20 million) lawsuit against the
Munhwa Broadcasting Corp. (MBC) for a news broadcast that raised a suspicion that prosecutors
arranged to offer cases to lawyers after receiving money. The Seoul District Court held in June 2000 that
the TV news program had defamed the plaintiffs “because it disparaged the prosecutors as a whole.”
30
In
this regard, British media attorney David Hooper’s discerning criticism of libel actions pursued by police
officers in England is noteworthy to Korean judges--and prosecutors. In Reputations Under Fire, Hooper
stated cogently:
It is arguable whether use of the libel law is appropriate in all circumstances. A
distinction needs to be drawn between cases where serious allegations are made against
genuinely identifiable police officers, and those which relate to criticism of policing
methods. It is no doubt unpleasant for the police to read of their methods being vilified,
but these are matters of public interest, which the police ought to be able to tolerate along
with the many other difficult and unpleasant facets of their job.
31
In a 1997 media libel case, the Supreme Court of Korea liberalized the libel defense standard for
the press: "Even though the contents of a story published in a newspaper are factually false. The
newspaper cannot be held liable for defamation if there is a considerable ground to believe the story to be
true, and the story only relates to a matter of public interest."
32
In determining the existence of the
"considerable ground" to believe the story, the Court suggested asking whether the story demands prompt
dissemination, whether the sources are trustworthy, and whether it is easy to confirm the truth of the story
through checking with the defamed."
33
Under this belief and public interest test, a media defendant is not
necessarily required to prove the truth of a defamatory statement to avoid liability. If the statement
concerns a matter of public interest, the publisher need only show that the statement was made under the
reasonable, though misguided, belief that the story was true and the source was reliable.
The Supreme Court case of 1997 is also significant in that the media petitioner argued the
American libel law doctrine of "actual malice"
34
as a possible defense for publication of its defamatory
article and demanded the respondent's proof of "actual malice" in publication of the story. The Supreme
Court, rejecting the "actual malice" argument out of hand, held: "It is only the defendant's personal
opinion to assert that the court, because of the special characteristic of the news media, should rule that
there was no considerable ground for believing a story in reporting a public official’s unethical and illegal
practices only when the publisher knew or recklessly disregarded the news report’s falsity, and that the
burden of proof should be on the plaintiff."
35
Convention