Punishment for Defamation | A Strategy That Led to a Finding of No Suspicion of Crime in a Complaint Over an Internet Post

Punishment for defamation may arise where one publicly discloses facts or false facts capable of undermining another person's social evaluation, and a post made using an information and communications network or similar means may also be subject to criminal punishment.

For punishment for defamation to be recognized, the following requirements must be satisfied.

① Intent (purpose of slander): Whether there was a purpose of disparaging a specific person, rather than a mere opinion

② Publicity: Whether it was in a public form that an unspecified number of persons or a third party could perceive

③ Statement of facts or false facts: A case in which content capable of harming another person's reputation was specifically set forth

④ Act of defamation: That it is an act capable of lowering another person's social evaluation or reputation

In practice, the level of punishment for defamation varies greatly depending on whether the content set forth is ‘true’ or ‘false,’ and on the purpose and circumstances of the expression.

In addition, even where a defamation charge is recognized, there is a possibility that the sentence may be mitigated or the matter may be concluded with non-prosecution, after comprehensively considering various circumstances such as intent, public-interest purpose, truthfulness, and the relationship with the victim.

Therefore, in a defamation punishment matter, it is very important to examine the elements of the offense closely at the early stage and to respond by accurately analyzing which category the conduct falls under as a matter of legal principle.

The defense focused on disputing that the ‘identifiability of the victim,’ which is a premise for the establishment of punishment for defamation, was not clear.

The defense organized, together with case-law principles, the point that it was difficult to conclude that the expressions in the post alone pointed to a specific individual, and reflected this in the written opinion.

The defense also attached analytical materials capable of showing that it would be difficult for an actual reader to recognize this objectively.

The defense emphasized that, although the expressions at issue may have been somewhat exaggerated, when viewed in the overall context they amounted to no more than the raising of suspicions or the expression of opinions based on the facts.

In particular, by pointing out that whether there was ‘awareness of falsity’ was the key issue, the defense substantiated that the client had written the post on the basis of relatively objective materials.

The defense actively invoked the purport of case law that minor differences in the details cannot immediately be concluded to constitute the ‘statement of false facts.’

The defense argued persuasively that the ‘purpose of slander,’ another important requirement for punishment for defamation, was difficult to recognize.

The certified criminal law specialist attorney emphasized that the client's purpose in posting was not a personal attack but a request for an explanation regarding operations and the raising of an issue.

On the basis that the sentence structure was in the form of an inquiry rather than an emotional reproach, the defense denied any intent to slander.

Punishment for defamation is not merely a matter of whether criminal punishment is imposed.

It is accompanied by various legal and social risks, such as the records remaining in the course of the investigation, the possibility of expansion into civil litigation, and damage to one's social image.

Because a single statement or a single sentence of explanation can affect the final determination, the initial response strategy comes to determine the result.

By blocking unnecessary expansion of the investigation and responding strategically with both the criminal matter and the potential civil matter in mind, we minimize the client's risk.

If your current situation is related to punishment for defamation, this is the point at which a structured response is needed rather than the mere relief of anxiety.

Please review the course of your case accurately 🔗legal consultation reservationthrough a.