Busan Defamation Attorney's Assistance | Client Charged With Defamation Receives ‘Acquittal’ With Daeryun's Assistance

The client was running a cafe. A former workplace colleague (hereinafter the victim) reportedly came to visit the cafe.

Another employee of the cafe, Ms. A, was also close with the victim, so the three of them chatted at length.

In the meantime, the client learned that the victim had told Ms. A all about the personal matters between the client and her boyfriend.

Angered by this, the client got into a heated argument with the victim and, in the process, loudly spoke about a mental illness that the victim had.

The victim filed a complaint against the client, claiming that the client had publicly stated her sensitive matters in the presence of a third party, Ms. A, and had thereby defamed her.

🔗Defamation refers to an act that infringes upon another person's social reputation, and in order to punish it, several legal elements must be satisfied as a matter of law.

1. Statement of a Specific Fact

Defamation is established only where a specific fact capable of lowering another person's social reputation is stated. It need not be a false fact; it may be established even with a true fact so long as the content harms the social reputation.

2. Purpose of Slander

If there was an intent to harm another person's reputation and the purpose was to slander, defamation is established.

3. Publicity (the Possibility of a Third Party's Awareness)

Defamation must take place in a state where an unspecified number of people or a third party can become aware of it. If something is said only to the victim alone, defamation is not established.

According to the Criminal Act, one can see that where defamation is committed by stating a false fact, the sentence is heavier.

Where the other party stands in a privately close relationship with the speaker or the victim, such as a spouse, relative, or friend, or where that party holds an official duty of confidentiality or a comparable position in which such matters are to be handled, publicity is denied as a case in which, by reason of such a relationship or status, the maintenance of secrecy can be expected to a considerably high degree. (See Supreme Court Decision 78Do473, April 25, 1978, among others.)

The victim and Ms. A, the only person who heard the statement, had worked together at the same workplace for more than 5 years, and the three of them were therefore well acquainted with one another's personal privacy.

Accordingly, since there was no possibility or risk that Ms. A, having heard the reference to the victim's mental illness, would spread it to a third party, the attorney argued that the publicity required for defamation could not be recognized.

At the time of the incident, while arguing on the ground that the victim had been speaking ill of the client, the client said to the victim, “I have plenty to say too,” and the victim responded along the lines of “Go ahead and say it.” It was in this way that the client came to mention the victim's mental illness.

Since the client made the statement in response to the victim repeatedly saying to say whatever she wanted, the attorney argued that it could not be regarded as having been said with the criminal intent to defame the victim.