'Prosecutor Sponsor' Standing on the Photo Line... Supreme Court Rules "It Is a Violation of Portrait Rights"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] A man who once stood at the photo line during an investigation over allegations of being a 'prosecutor sponsor' has filed a damages lawsuit against the state and won a partial ruling. This man, known as a sponsor of former Chief Prosecutor Kim Hyeong-jun and involved in controversy, claimed that his portrait rights were violated.

On the 19th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yusuk) announced that it upheld the lower court's ruling partially in favor of the plaintiff in the appeal trial of Kim against the state and prosecutors at the time, regarding the damages claim lawsuit.

Kim, involved in the sponsorship case of former Chief Prosecutor Kim Hyeong-jun, filed a lawsuit claiming that his portrait rights were infringed when his face was exposed at the photo line while attending the substantive hearing for an arrest warrant in September 2016. He argued that although he was not a public figure, the prosecution placed him at the photo line, causing suffering to him and his family, and refused his request to conceal his face.

The first trial court judged that the prosecution did not forcibly place Kim at the photo line, citing that Kim himself attracted media attention and responded to reporters' questions.

The second trial court's judgment differed. The appellate court held that Kim, a businessman running a small and medium-sized enterprise, could not be considered a public or official figure in any sense. It ruled that the state violated portrait rights by breaching the public relations guidelines and investigation guidelines, informing reporters of the specific circumstances of Kim's arrest, and ordered the state to pay Kim 10 million won, partially ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

However, the court did not recognize that the investigators who placed Kim at the photo line actively violated regulations such as prohibiting disclosure of investigation details.

The Supreme Court's judgment was consistent. The court stated, "There is no error in the lower court's ruling by violating logic and the rules of experience, exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or misunderstanding the legal principles regarding the public relations activities and protective duties of investigative agencies," thereby affirming the lower court's decision.

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