Court Orders Correction of Report Claiming 'Involvement of Lee In-gyu in Nondureong Watch Coverage'... Reversed in Second Trial

Lee In-gyu, former head of the Central Investigation Department at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] Former head of the Central Investigation Department at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, Lee In-gyu (63), won an appeal in a lawsuit against a media company that reported he was involved in the coverage of the late former President Roh Moo-hyun's 'ditch watch' incident.

According to the legal community on the 20th, the Seoul High Court Civil Division 8 (Presiding Judge Jang Seok-jo, Judges Kim Gil-ryang and Kim Yong-min) overturned the first trial ruling, which had dismissed Lee's defamation and damages claim against CBSi, the operator of NoCut News, columnist A, and reporter B, and partially ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the appeal trial.

The court accepted Lee's request for a correction and ruled that CBSi and columnist A are jointly liable for 30 million won in damages, and CBSi and reporter B are jointly liable for 10 million won in damages.

NoCut News, in June 2018, published an article titled "Lee In-gyu's residence in the United States confirmed, summons inevitable" and an editorial titled "Lee In-gyu must return and reveal the truth," each reporting that Lee was involved in the 'ditch watch' coverage.

In particular, columnist A mentioned in the editorial that "the prosecution was the source that leaked to the media the content that 'former President Roh threw away an expensive luxury watch in a ditch,'" and wrote, "Lee In-gyu admitted that it was a plan by the National Intelligence Service to damage former President Roh."

In response, Lee denied these reports and filed a lawsuit in September 2018.

Previously, the first trial court ruled that since Lee met with a National Intelligence Service official on April 21, 2009, and that official mentioned the disclosure of the watch bribery suspicion to morally damage former President Roh, and because the problematic reports did not explicitly identify Lee as the source who leaked the suspicion to the media, it was difficult to consider the reports false, thus ruling against the plaintiff.

However, the appellate court's judgment differed.

The appellate court stated, "The defendants acknowledge that several investigations and inquiries regarding the watch bribery suspicion have been conducted, but the truth remains unclear, and they claim it is unknown whether the plaintiff was involved in the coverage of the watch bribery suspicion," adding, "It is recognized only that the plaintiff received a request from a National Intelligence Service official to use the watch bribery suspicion in a way that would be beneficial if leaked to the media, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was actually involved in leaking information to the media."

Furthermore, "the part where the plaintiff admitted that the prosecution leaked information about the watch bribery suspicion to the media at the request of the National Intelligence Service can only be seen as seriously damaging the honor of the plaintiff, who was the head of the Central Investigation Department at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.