Attorney Kang Yong-seok of the YouTube channel Garosero Research Institute, who was indicted on charges of publicly spreading false information about President Lee Jae-myung ahead of the last 20th presidential election, received a suspended prison sentence on appeal.
The Criminal Division 6-1 of the Seoul Central District Court (High Court Judges Jeong Jae-o, Choi Eun-jeong and Lee Ye-seul) on the 3rd overturned the lower court's sentence of a 10 million won fine for Kang, who was tried on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act, and sentenced him to one year in prison, suspended for two years, with 40 hours of community service. Former MBC reporter Kim Se-eui received a 7 million won fine, the same as in the first trial.
They were indicted in Sept. 2022 on charges of stating false information on a YouTube broadcast that the president had been sent to a juvenile reformatory as a child. They also faced charges for raising suspicions, in connection with an incident in which first lady Kim Hea-kyung was injured at home in Nov. 2021, that the president had an extramarital child due to an affair and that a fall accident may have occurred during a marital dispute arising from it.
The appellate court found attorney Kang guilty over his remarks related to the juvenile reformatory, which the first trial had found not guilty. The first trial had ruled not guilty regarding the reformatory remarks, saying, "It only appears to imply that the president had unfavorable conduct or to raise suspicions about a criminal record, and it is difficult to evaluate that there was a specific statement of fact."
However, the appellate court found that Kang, under the pretense of a monologue format during the YouTube broadcast, indirectly and obliquely hinted at false information and added specific circumstances to his remarks.
The appellate court said, "Kang's remarks are sufficient to make ordinary voters believe that the president had been to a juvenile reformatory and that the Democratic Party of Korea could not have nominated the president as its presidential candidate at the time," adding, "It is directly connected to lowering public trust in the candidate by eliciting negative evaluations of morality and law-abiding awareness."
It added, "The transfer of a candidate to a juvenile reformatory during youth, and suspicions of an affair and an extramarital child, are not only important to voters' judgments about the candidate but are also significant in that they damage a person's character," and, "The act of publicizing such suspicions ahead of the presidential election is a crime that seriously infringes on the fairness of the election and the free will of voters."
The court, however, maintained the first-trial findings regarding the remarks that "there was an extramarital child due to an affair, leading to a marital fight" and that "Ms. Kim may have suffered a fall accident during the marital fight." Earlier, the first trial found the extramarital child remark guilty and the fall-accident-related remark not guilty.
The first trial said of the fall-accident remark, "Considering, among other things, that various suspicions were being raised in the media at the time, the marital fight was a reasonably (justifiably) inferable suspicion within the scope of inference." In contrast, it said the remark that "there was an extramarital child due to an affair, leading to a marital fight" "has never had objective grounds presented and cannot be regarded as a reasonably justified suspicion."
The court told Kang and Kim, "You say your remarks are legitimate criticism in the dimension of the right to know, but the right to know is a right to the truth, not to baseless suspicions."