Due to a rapid shift in cultural and legal condition and in the media environment, in recent years Korea has experienced an explosive increase in libel action against the media. It is argued that group libel charges by the prosecutors have caused a se...
Due to a rapid shift in cultural and legal condition and in the media environment, in recent years Korea has experienced an explosive increase in libel action against the media. It is argued that group libel charges by the prosecutors have caused a serious chilling effect on freedom of the press. The purpose of this paper is to study how fair and balanced Korean judges were in their assessment of damage awards for defamed prosecutors. In deciding the compensatory damages awards, courts did not consider only the plaintiffs' reputational injury. Courts considered the image, pride, and morale of bureaucrats as a whole, including other prosecutors in the nation, in assessing the amount to award the plaintiffs. Courts did not present any explanation of why the plaintiffs should be awarded monetary compensation for presumed damages to other prosecutors and public servants as well as for their actual damages. However, Korean judges showed starkly different attitudes in their assessment of damage award for defamed other public officials, including the National Assemblymen and some generals. Judges did not take into account reputational harm to all National Assemblymen or all generals in establishing presumed damages.