Court Rules Sanctions Against Broadcaster Over Campaign Pledge Fulfillment Report 'Unlawful'

On November 2nd, the Seoul Administrative Court ruled in favor of Daejeon MBC in a lawsuit against the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) regarding the cancellation of sanctions. The lawsuit challenged the legality of sanctions imposed by the KCC on Daejeon MBC for its report assessing the fulfillment of campaign pledges by local lawmakers ahead of the 22nd National Assembly elections. The court found the KCC's sanctions to be unlawful.

From January 31st to February 1st, 2025, Daejeon MBC broadcast a news segment titled 'Did the 21st Local National Assembly Members Keep Their Promises?' The segment focused on a report published by the Korea Manifesto Center analyzing the pledge fulfillment and parliamentary activities of lawmakers representing the Daejeon, Sejong, and Chungnam regions. The report analyzed the pledge fulfillment status of these lawmakers using objective indicators.

The Election Broadcasting Deliberation Committee determined that Daejeon MBC's report violated deliberation regulations. Following the committee's decision, the KCC imposed sanctions on Daejeon MBC on April 26th, 2025. The KCC is the regulatory body overseeing broadcasting businesses.

Daejeon MBC filed an administrative lawsuit contesting the KCC's sanctions. Daejeon MBC argued that its report was based on fair and objective grounds and did not violate deliberation regulations. The broadcaster maintained that the KCC's sanctions were unfair and initiated legal action.

The Seoul Administrative Court ruled in favor of Daejeon MBC in its lawsuit against the Korea Broadcasting and Communications Commission, finding the KCC's sanctions to be unlawful. The court appeared to have concluded that Daejeon MBC's report was in the public interest and that the sanctions had the potential to infringe on freedom of the press. This ruling is significant in finding a balance between freedom of the press and fairness.

The importance of ensuring freedom of the press during election periods was emphasized. The court's ruling reaffirmed the principle of respecting the media's freedom to criticize.

Daejeon MBC's news segment, 'Did the 21st Local National Assembly Members Keep Their Promises?', went beyond simply raising suspicions and analyzed pledge fulfillment rates based on objective data. The report was considered credible due to its citation of the Korea Manifesto Center's report, which presented a concrete overview of lawmakers' pledge fulfillment status using a combination of quantitative and qualitative assessments.

The KCC's sanctions were criticized for excessively restricting freedom of the press in the lead-up to the election. It was argued that evaluating pledge fulfillment rates provides voters with crucial information, and preventing reporting on this matter could infringe on voters' right to know. The court's ruling can be interpreted as accepting these criticisms.

The court's ruling reportedly specified that Daejeon MBC's report served the public interest and that the sanctions had the potential to infringe on freedom of the press. The court also emphasized the importance of the media's role during election periods and concluded that the KCC's sanctions were excessive. The full text of the ruling will be released at a later date.

The outcome of this lawsuit is expected to influence the establishment of future election reporting guidelines and broadcasters' self-regulation.

The court is expected to outline the specific reasons for its ruling of unlawfulness in the judgment. A more detailed analysis of this case will be possible once the judgment is released. This ruling is expected to provide important implications for seeking ways to ensure freedom of the press while maintaining fairness and objectivity in broadcasting.