CONTENTS
- 1. Network Act Litigation, What Were the Detailed Circumstances?
- - Network Act Litigation, What Are the Relevant Statutes and Precedents?
- 2. Network Act Litigation, What Was the Lower Courts' Determination?
- 3. Network Act Litigation, What Was the Supreme Court's Determination?
- 4. Network Act Litigation, Daeryun's Strategy
1. Network Act Litigation, What Were the Detailed Circumstances?
The circumstances of this Network Act litigation are as follows.
The defendant, A, had operated, since 2018, a website that disclosed the personal information of parents who failed to pay child support after divorce.
The website listed specific personal details, including the photographs and names of parents who did not pay child support.
In 2019, A posted an article that set out a man's face, name, and place of origin, and then added the expression "shameless."
The man, asserting that some of the content A had written was false, filed a criminal complaint against A.
Network Act Litigation, What Are the Relevant Statutes and Precedents?
📌 Relevant Statutes
Article 70 of the Network Act (Penal Provisions)
(1) Any person who, with the purpose of disparaging another, defames another by publicly disclosing a fact through an information and communications network shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won.
(2) Any person who, with the purpose of disparaging another, defames another by publicly disclosing a false fact through an information and communications network shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years, suspension of qualifications for not more than ten years, or a fine not exceeding 50 million won.
(3) For the crimes under paragraphs (1) and (2), no public prosecution may be instituted against the explicitly expressed will of the victim.
📌 Relevant Precedents
"The phrase 'a case in which the stated fact concerns the public interest' means that the stated fact, viewed objectively, concerns the public interest and that the actor also subjectively stated that fact for the public interest. Matters concerning the public interest include not only matters concerning the interests of the State, society, or other members of the general public at large, but also matters concerning the concern and interest of a particular social group or of its members as a whole. Going further, whether a stated fact concerns such a public interest must be judged by considering all the circumstances, including: whether the victim of the defamatory expression is a public figure, such as a public official or a public person, or merely a private individual; whether the expression objectively concerns a matter of public concern endowed with the public nature and social character that the people ought to know, thereby contributing to the formation of public opinion or to public debate, or whether it belongs to a purely private sphere; whether the victim invited the risk of the defamatory expression; and the nature of the reputation harmed by the expression, the degree of the infringement, and the manner and motive of the expression. If the actor's principal motive or purpose is for the public interest, it is difficult to find a purpose to disparage even where other private purposes or motives are incidentally embedded." (See Supreme Court, Decision of October 14, 2005, 2005 Do 5068; Supreme Court, Decision of July 28, 2022, 2022 Do 4171, etc.)
2. Network Act Litigation, What Was the Lower Courts' Determination?
The lower courts' determinations regarding this Network Act litigation diverged.
First, the court of first instance rendered an "acquittal" for A.
The reason was that, although some of the disclosed information was false, the fact that the individual had not paid child support was something that actually occurred, and A, who had received the information from the individual's spouse, would have found it difficult to ascertain whether that information was true.
The prosecution immediately appealed. In doing so, it added the charge of "defamation by statement of fact" at the appellate stage.
The appellate court accepted this argument by the prosecution. It found that the very purpose of the article A had posted lay in "disparagement."
The appellate court pointed out the content of A's article point by point. It noted that, going beyond merely informing the public of the fact of nonpayment of child support, A disclosed all of the individual's personal details, including the photograph, name, and age, and did not hesitate to make crude and aggressive criticism.
The court explained that, while there was an aspect in which the aggrieved individual had brought about this situation by failing to pay child support, an examination of the manner of expression and the motive of the posting showed that the disadvantage to the aggrieved individual far outweighed the public interest A would gain by disclosing the information.
It then imposed a fine on A.
3. Network Act Litigation, What Was the Supreme Court's Determination?
The Supreme Court, reexamining this Network Act litigation, reached the same determination as the lower judgment.
The Supreme Court pointed out that A posted the aggrieved individual's personal information on the internet and wrote phrases carrying an intent to criticize without going through a proper verification process, and did not afford the individual any opportunity to explain the relevant circumstances.
Accordingly, finding that A's final appeal was without merit, the court did not accept A's argument.
4. Network Act Litigation, Daeryun's Strategy
In connection with Network Act litigation, this article has analyzed a Supreme Court decision holding that, even where an article posted on the internet is true, it may be subject to criminal punishment when its purpose is closer to "disparagement."
Around 2019, various sites disclosing the personal information of parents who failed to pay child support drew attention.
As the photographs, names, and ages of some parents who evaded their responsibilities toward their children were disclosed, the matter prompted considerable public response.
While many citizens supported the sites from the standpoint of realizing social justice, controversy over defamation also arose as ordinary individuals' information was disclosed without the consent of the persons concerned and as such information was indiscriminately repurposed.
Apart from A's case, the Supreme Court earlier this year also affirmed a conviction against another site operator who had been indicted earlier on similar charges.
The general position of the courts is, in effect, that although the circumstances leading to the disclosure of these individuals' information are understandable, the scope of disclosure is excessive and can hardly be regarded as content necessary for the public interest.
As in the case above, with the development of the internet and social media, defamation lawsuits involving personal information are occurring frequently. If you become involved in such litigation, you may wish to seek the assistance of a legal team promptly.
At Daeryun Law Firm LLP, attorneys experienced in defamation-related trials provide tailored assistance to clients.
If you have any related inquiries, you are welcome to reach out to Daeryun Law Firm LLP at any time.
