Choi Kang-wook, a former lawmaker of the Democratic Party who was indicted for defaming a reporter from Channel A, has been found guilty by the Supreme Court. Previously, Choi received a not guilty verdict in the first trial, but in the second trial, the ruling was reversed, and he was sentenced to a fine of 10 million won.
On the 17th, the Supreme Court's third division (Chief Justice Oh Seok-jun) confirmed the original sentence imposing a fine of 10 million won for Choi's defamation charges.
In April 2020, Choi posted an article titled 'Summary of statements by the Channel A reporter in letters and transcripts' on his Facebook. In this post, Choi wrote that the reporter told Lee Chul (former representative of Value Investment Korea), 'It doesn't have to be true. If you want to survive, say you gave money to Yoo Si-min.' The prosecution viewed this as defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act and indicted him.
The first trial court ruled on October 2022 that 'it pertains to a matter of public interest and the purpose of defamation is not established,' thus acquitting him. To establish charges of defamation by false factual statements under the Information and Communications Network Act, the requirement of 'the intent to defame a person' must be fulfilled. The prosecution added the charge of defamation under the Criminal Act, which does not require the recognition of 'defamatory intent,' in the second trial.
The second trial court recognized that Choi had the intent to defame and found him guilty of defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act. The second trial court stated, 'Choi distorted the content beyond merely quoting or summarizing the letters of the (Channel A) reporter, attacking the victim as a journalist who incites false reporting or teaches perjury,' and judged, 'This is inconsistent with the spirit of the law regarding freedom of expression and constitutes an unlawful act that exceeds the bounds of criticism in social norms.'
It then stated, 'Choi's act of writing this article should be viewed as having been conducted for the purpose of defamation against the former reporter, beyond legitimate criticism for public interest.'
Afterward, Choi remarked, 'I think the (second trial) court exercised excessive imagination,' adding, 'I believe I can receive a proper judgment from the Supreme Court.'
However, the Supreme Court stated, 'There was no misunderstanding of the legal principles regarding the establishment of the defamation charge in the original judgment,' thereby affirming the original ruling.