Ahead of the 22nd general election held in Apr. 2024, a 5 million won fine was finalized for senior reporter Kang Jin-gu of the online outlet "Newstapa" (Citizen Media Newstapa), who raised allegations of "special favors for a solar power project" against People Power Party lawmaker Seong Il-jong, a candidate in the Seosan·Taean constituency in South Chungcheong Province.
The Supreme Court's First Division (presiding Justice Seo Kyung-hwan) finalized the lower court ruling that sentenced Kang and one other to a 5 million won fine in their final appeal on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act and the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (defamation).
On Mar. 20, 2024, 21 days before the general election, Kang and one other posted a video on Newstapa's YouTube channel claiming that at the time, Seong had pushed a solar power project so that Hyundai Motor Group could repurpose the Cheonsu Bay site in Seosan, South Chungcheong Province, as an industrial site, and that Seong's cousin received special favors in the process.
A few hours before airing the content on YouTube, they received a response from Seong's side to the effect that "the allegations are groundless." However, on the broadcast they made remarks giving the impression that Seong had offered no explanation, saying, for example, "Without an explanation, one cannot escape the allegations."
Prosecutors determined the report was false and indicted Kang and others, saying they publicly revealed false facts with the intent to slander and cause Seong to lose the election.
During the trial, Kang and others argued, "Overall, the report conforms to objective facts or should be seen as based on grounds that raise reasonable suspicion given the circumstances," adding, "The primary purpose was to serve the public interest, including vetting a public official's qualifications and voters' right to know."
In court, Kang and others cited Seong's parliamentary records and media reports, arguing that the circumstances made it reasonable to believe there were facts warranting suspicion. They also denied the charges on the grounds that the report could be viewed as opinion or evaluation, not as the publication of facts.
In the first trial, the court fined Kang and the other defendant 5 million won each. The court said, "The defendants did not review publicly available materials such as the bill to amend the law and the plenary session minutes," and "They neither secured nor referenced objective and neutral materials."
The appeals court also fined Kang and the other defendant 5 million won each. The appellate panel said, "The defendants aired and posted the broadcast without going through sufficient fact-checking procedures while recognizing that objective evidence was insufficient," adding, "The broadcast was posted close to the election, leaving Seong without sufficient time to respond." The broadcast drew 90,000 views over the 21 days until election day.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, saying the lower court did not misunderstand the law.