民事上 公人에 대한 名譽毁損責任의 成立要件

The Requirement of the Liability for the Defamation performed to a Public Figure - Focused on a sufficient reason to believe and the theory of a public figure-

The defamation means the behaviour decreasing a victim's reputation in the community. Occasionally, there is unlawful even in case the defamation is established. Even in case where the media harms a person's reputation by reporting factual matters, if it is only for the purpose of public interest as matters related to the public interest, then such act should not be viewed as unlawful where the truth of the stated fact was proved, or where an actor believed its truth or had sufficient reason to believe even though it was not proved. However, the media has the burden of proving the truth of the communication, and the victim does not bear the burden of proving actual malice just because the victim is a public figure. In the public figure is included the public official and the person which the interesting of the public becomes by his achievements, reputation, occupation, and etc. The public figure has a small room for his reputation comparing to the private figure. In case there is no 'actual malice', the theory of an actual malice formed at U.S. is the theory which doesn't bear the liability for defamation. Supreme Court doesn't accommodate equally this theory. However, actually the ideology for guaranteeing the freedom of expression is admitted. As follows, Supreme Court judges a limit between a person's reputational protection and the freedom of expression. “In compromising the freedom of the press for the sake of protecting a person's reputation, the standard should be formulated depending on whether the victim is a public figure or a private one, or whether the communication is about a public issue or a person's privacy; thus, in the expression of public interests, the restriction on the freedom of the press should be less strict and matters related to public officers' integrity or job performance should be subject to the citizen's control and criticism. Therefore, the function of control and criticism should not be easily restricted unless it is malicious or conspicuously unreasonable.”