SBS's investigative program I Want to Know (Korean title: Geugeot-i Algo Sipda) broadcast the child's photo and date of birth, which triggered a national debate.
The Constitutional Court of Korea found the program's purpose to be in the public interest and overturned the prosecution's decision to suspend charges.
This ruling could reshape how newsrooms report child-abuse cases and influence future legal and ethical standards.
Jeongin face disclosure: public interest or privacy breach?
Overview: what happened
First, the facts in brief.
In January 2021, a prime-time episode aired images of the child and the child's date of birth, which first brought the disclosure to public attention.
The production team said they included visual evidence because describing the injuries and changes in the child's expression by words alone would not convey the seriousness.
Civil groups filed complaints, the prosecutor initially issued a suspension of charges, and the dispute eventually reached the Constitutional Court of Korea.
The producers said the broadcast aimed to prevent future child abuse and spur a more thorough investigation.
However, the court acknowledged that the broadcast violated the letter of the child-abuse reporting law while also ruling that the program's public-interest purpose aligned with the child's welfare.
As a result, debate over the limits of news reporting and possible reforms to media practice intensified.
Background and timeline
The case unfolded against a backdrop of public shock.
Jeongin died in 2020 after abuse by adoptive parents, and public outrage spread across South Korea.
In that atmosphere, the program team felt a heightened duty to show the case as vividly as possible.
Inside the newsroom, staff held intense discussions and eventually decided to publish the images.
The decision had immediate consequences.
Many viewers reacted with empathy and anger, while civil groups accused the show of violating the law that protects identifying details of child abuse victims.
The prosecution initially opted for a suspension of charges in 2023, but the producers challenged that result and took the case to the Constitutional Court, which in December 2025 recognized a public-interest justification.
Arguments in favor
Supporters put public interest first.
They stress the program was not driven by voyeurism.
Instead, they say journalism’s role includes exposing social problems and creating a public forum; the broadcast, in their view, revealed both the brutality of the abuse and institutional gaps in child protection.
They emphasize that visible wounds and shifts in the child's facial expression made the cruelty immediately understandable to viewers.
Supporters also say public-interest reporting must find ways to convey the truth without identifying victims.
They point to the Constitutional Court's reasoning that the broadcast served a public-good purpose and was not sensationalist, interpreting the ruling as a vindication of reporting in the public interest.
They add that the program helped trigger renewed dialogue about child-safety systems and reporting mechanisms.
Supporters offer a pragmatic rationale as well.
They argue that some visual information cannot be fully conveyed with words and that, without it, the urgency of investigation and reform can be lost.
Seen this way, responsible reporting is a public good that can prompt institutional change. Therefore, the case demonstrates how careful journalistic work can lead to social reform.
Arguments against
The law must be respected.
Critics point to the statute’s protective norm and argue the face disclosure violated that protection.
They hold that the child's dignity and privacy were violated regardless of the child's death, and that the family and others close to the child may suffer additional pain and secondary harm.
Opponents warn that broadly reading exceptions for public interest could render protective rules meaningless.
Civil groups argue that claiming public-interest justification risks deepening the victim's suffering and that breaking the law should not be justified by alleged social benefit.
They also worry that the legal dispute sets a precedent that weakens the media’s internal ethical limits.
Those opposed offer alternatives to publishing a face.
They suggest summarizing medical records, using graphic explanations, or relying on materials officially released by authorities as ways to describe the case without identifying the child.
From this perspective, public-interest explanation is possible without revealing identifying information, and protecting children should take priority.
What the clash means and institutional deliberation
A balanced reform is needed.
Neutral observers see the court’s decision as the start of a redefinition of boundaries between press freedom and child protection.
However, they also warn that vague legal language could invite misuse, and so clearer guidelines and transparent decision criteria are necessary.
Law reform discussions should lead to practical measures.
For example, lawmakers might create a narrowly defined public-interest exception with strict procedures, improve consent processes with victim families, and establish coordination channels between broadcast regulators and the judiciary.
News organizations should also strengthen internal ethics rules and add multiple review steps during reporting and editing to protect victims.
Public deliberation must link to education.
Journalism training should emphasize balancing victim protection and public-interest reporting, and schools and families should expand programs that teach child-abuse prevention.
These institutional and educational approaches can help move the debate from short-term controversy to long-term reform.
Comparative cases and international lessons
Other countries offer lessons.
Some countries strictly ban identifying information by law while allowing very limited, reviewed exceptions for the public interest, often judged by independent oversight bodies.
Others rely on voluntary press self-regulation and case-by-case newsroom judgment.
These comparisons suggest useful reforms at home.
Introducing independent review, clear application standards, and a guiding principle that prioritizes victim protection can help resolve conflicts between public interest and private rights.
Drawing on international practice, Korea can refine laws, institutions, and ethical norms to better manage such tensions.
Conclusion and recommendations
The core issue is balance and responsibility.
This case showed how vital public-interest reporting can be, and simultaneously how sensitive victim protection remains.
Law and journalistic practice should be refined to advance the public interest while safeguarding vulnerable individuals.
In short: first, recognize the need for public-interest reporting but clarify application standards through legal reform.
Second, strengthen newsroom ethics and verification to minimize unnecessary identifying details.
Third, expand education and prevention programs that bolster child protection in families, schools, and workplaces.
Ultimately, the ruling marks a moment to recalibrate the balance between press freedom and child welfare.
Readers should consider which value—public exposure to spur reform, or strict protection of victims—should weigh more heavily when these rights clash.
