‘PD수첩’ 관련 판례에서 보이는 사법부의 사실성에 대한 인식의 차이 연구

The increase of the libel lawsuit against press, especially the cases derived from public figures, is an evidence that people make an active use of legal procedure to protect their personal rights. Libel suits threaten the ownership,managing staffs, journalists and producers to practice self-censorship. As a result of self-cenship, journalists and producers tend not to investigate sensitive issues that may cause a libel action and limit newsgathering activities even when they have questionable social concerns. In 1999, the Constitutional Court of Korea held that pubic figures must be differentiated from private figures in libel cases. In accordance with the decision, the Supreme Court has ruled libel cases applying different criteria for public figures and expanded the scope of constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression since 2002. Article 5 of the Act od Press Arbitration and Remedies, Etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports prescribe that the press shall not infringe the rights of other person's reputation and in cases where the press have violated any other person's reputation, such damage shall be remedied promptly. But in cases where the press present a true report related to the public interests or any justifiable reason exists that they are believedto do so, no legal liability shall attach to the press. The findings of this study can be summarized as follows: 1) The Doctrine of public figure was applied to the 'PD Diary cases. 2) The critical standard for reality judgement was the 'total discourse' and social status of the plaintiff. 3) Investigative reporting programs must deal with the issues of public figures and matters of public concern to be protected under our judicial system.