Jang claimed coverage of his online posts was unrelated to his crimes

Court rules reporting served the public interest

Similar suit also lost on appeal in July

Jang Dae-ho. [Yonhap]
Jang Dae-ho. [Yonhap]

Jang Dae-ho, serving a life sentence for killing a hotel guest and dumping the dismembered body in the Han River, has lost yet another damages lawsuit — this time against media outlets that reported on his old online posts. Jang argued the coverage exposed personal information unrelated to his crimes and constituted an abuse of rights, but the court rejected his claims.

According to legal sources, Civil Division 14 of the Seoul Western District Court, presided over by Judge Lee Won-jung, dismissed Jang's appeal on Sept. 3, upholding the lower court ruling against him. Jang had sued three media outlets seeking a total of 4 million won ($2,940) in damages. The court also ordered him to bear the litigation costs.

Jang was convicted of murdering a guest at the motel where he worked in August 2019, after the guest allegedly picked a fight with him. He mutilated the body and disposed of it in the Han River. His life sentence was confirmed in July 2020.

Shortly after Jang's identity was made public, the outlets reported on anonymous posts he had written on online forums years earlier. In one post from 2007, he advised a student struggling with school bullying that "choosing not to fight is signing a contract to be tormented forever."

In another post, framed as tips for dealing with difficult motel guests, he wrote that one could "threaten them by bringing up a weapon" and that "unwanted guests should be driven out by force if necessary."

Jang filed the lawsuits against the outlets in October last year. During the proceedings, he argued that the media had "disclosed personal information unrelated to the crimes" in an abuse of rights, and that the outlets had "uncovered his private information through improper means," amounting to a violation and leak of personal data.

The courts were unmoved. The appellate panel rejected all of Jang's claims, as the first-instance court had done in September last year.

The appeals court said the articles allowed readers to infer the background to Jang's crimes, and that the coverage therefore "can be assessed as serving the public interest — satisfying the public's right to know and contributing to crime prevention."

The court added that while the online posts had been written anonymously, "the press has a duty to report on matters of significant social importance in the public interest," and that this obligation was "all the more so given the gravity of the criminal case in which the plaintiff was convicted."

The panel further noted there was "no evidence whatsoever" that the outlets had used unlawful reporting methods or had gone beyond the scope of legitimate newsgathering to distort or exaggerate the facts. On that basis, it found Jang's claims to be without merit.

The court also said the articles appeared to have "done no more than explain the facts rather than newly disclose information about the plaintiff," and that even if there had been some limitation on his privacy rights, it was difficult to conclude that the articles themselves had caused any new harm.

The ruling was finalized on Sept. 23 after Jang chose not to appeal further.

Jang also lost a similar appeal against a different media outlet in July. In that case, the court ruled against him, saying his arguments were "without merit on any grounds." He has also filed an administrative lawsuit against a prison warden over restrictions on television viewing inside the facility, which he likewise lost.


notstrong@heraldcorp.com