A Defamation Complaint Defense Case | A Client Suspected of Defamation During a Broadcast, Non-Prosecution

In a situation in which communication with the company was not going well, the client, while conducting a broadcast, said, "I do not even know the plans going forward" and "Nothing about the operation is working."

Regarding this part, the criminal lawyer argued that these remarks were an expression of the client's thoughts and evaluation of the way the company was operated.

In other words, the lawyer emphasized that, because these were not specific facts whose truth or falsity could be proven through evidence but rather amounted to an expression of opinion, it was difficult to establish the crime of defamation by stating false facts.

The Supreme Court has in fact held as follows.

Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17237, September 2, 2011
In the crime of defamation, the ‘statement of fact’ is a concept opposed to the ‘expression of opinion’ whose content is a value judgment or evaluation, and it means a report or statement concerning a concrete past or present factual relationship in terms of time and space, referring to content whose expression can be proven by evidence; and in distinguishing whether the report or statement to be judged is fact or opinion, the determination must be made, by considering the overall circumstances, such as the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the possibility of proof, the context in which the words at issue were used, and the social situation in which the expression was made.

What the client said during the streaming broadcast was an expression of frustration with the situation in which communication with the company, including meetings, was not going well.

In connection with this, as a result of analyzing the broadcast video at issue in cooperation with an expert from the Digital Forensics Center, it was found that within the broadcast the client had precisely stated that communication with the company was not going well.

In addition, no remarks criticizing the company's representative or attacking his character were found.

On this basis, the lawyer emphasized that the client's remarks were not made for the purpose of disparaging the company but were merely an account of dissatisfaction with the situation the client was experiencing with the company.

The complainant company asserted that the client had spread false facts and thereby interfered with the internet business work conducted by the company.

To rebut this assertion, in cooperation with an expert from the Evidence Investigation Center, the lawyer collected evidence of the text messages in which the client had requested a meeting from the company several times, as well as evidence that the client had asked about the company's overall situation but had received no answer.

Supreme Court Decision 93Do1278, January 28, 1994
In the crime of interference with business, which is established by interfering with another person's business by means of spreading false facts, to spread false facts means to disseminate to an unspecified number of people facts whose content differs from the actual objective facts, and in particular, in such a case it is required that the actor actively recognized, at the time of the act, that the facts he spread were false.

In addition, on the basis of the above precedent, the lawyer actively argued that the client's remarks did not amount to the spreading of false facts, and that the crime of interference with business was also difficult to establish.

In this case, the issues were whether the remarks the client mentioned during the broadcast were false facts, and whether there had been a purpose of disparaging the complainant company.

In fact, the crime of defamation is not established simply because a person said something negative about another.

Whether the content of the words was fact or false, whether it was a general opinion, and whether there was a purpose of demeaning the other person are examined.

If the elements of the offense are met, the following punishments apply.

As the internet develops, cases in which speaking through streaming broadcasts such as YouTube, and personal broadcasts or through SNS becomes an issue on suspicion of violating the Network Act are common.

However, as in the client's case, the crime of defamation is not established merely because a person voiced a general complaint or expressed an opinion based on his own experience.