A Supreme Court ruling has determined that a person who raised allegations of corruption against a former executive in a KakaoTalk chat room where shareholders gathered cannot be punished for defamation. The court stated that the allegations cannot be deemed as clearly false, and if they serve a public interest rather than merely disparaging someone, they are not subject to punishment.
The Supreme Court stated on the 6th that it has upheld the second trial's acquittal of person A, who was charged with violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (defamation) on the 15th of last month.
Person A is a shareholder of the company where victim B worked as a director. According to the prosecution, person A heard from company officials during a meeting that 'B demanded money from the company' while discussing the extraordinary shareholders' meeting.
In response, A opened a chat room inviting more than 50 shareholders and posted messages stating, 'B demands money from the company after the business failed,' 'When things do not go as planned, they manipulate the shareholders,' and 'B is a high school graduate. They forged their educational background.'
Person A was charged with defaming person B. A's side argued, 'The content of the posts is not false and was posted with the intention of urging proper exercise of voting rights at the extraordinary shareholders' meeting, and there was no intention to defame B.'
The first trial found person A guilty of all charges and imposed a fine of 1 million won.
However, the second trial acquitted person A. The court noted, 'A's writings contribute to the proper exercise of voting rights (by the shareholders) at the extraordinary shareholders' meeting, and ultimately can help the company's management; thus, they can be interpreted as being created and posted for the public interest.'
It continued, 'A's posts are largely consistent with the facts, and the manner of expression is not to a degree that loses substantiality, being excessively aggressive or malicious.' It further added, 'Just because there was concern that the content could lower B's social evaluation, one cannot conclude that person A had the intent to disparage.' The prosecution filed an appeal against the second trial ruling.
However, the Supreme Court concluded that there were no issues with the second trial's judgment.