Distribution of Guilty Verdict to the Union... "Not Defamation"

"If Believed to Be True Even If Partially False, It Is Not Illegal"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that distributing copies of the judgment documents of a union official found guilty to union members is related to the public interest and therefore cannot be punished as defamation.

On the 26th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Kim Sanghwan) overturned the lower court's guilty verdict in the appeal trial of Mr. A, who was charged with defamation, injury, and insult, and sent the case back to the Jeonju District Court with a partial acquittal.

Mr. A, a member of the taxi cooperative, was prosecuted in 2017 on charges of defaming and assaulting Mr. B, who was the chairman of the cooperative's board at the time. The cooperative had taken out a loan of 2 billion won, and rumors spread among the members that Chairman B was using the money for personal purposes. Chairman B and another employee, Mr. C, were accused of embezzlement in the course of their duties, but only B was cleared of charges.

In response, Mr. A distributed copies of the judgment documents related to Mr. C's embezzlement case to the union members at an extraordinary general meeting and stated that Chairman B should be held responsible, leading to charges of defaming Mr. C as well.

The first and second trials found Mr. A guilty. The first trial stated, "Mr. B consistently testified that he was struck in the face with a fist," and "Although there is no evidence in the judgment documents that Mr. B embezzled the cooperative's money, Mr. A spoke as if Mr. B conspired to embezzle," sentencing him to a fine of 2.5 million won. Another union member, Mr. D, who was also prosecuted, was fined 1.5 million won.

The second trial also dismissed the appeal, stating, "Due to Mr. A's actions, Mr. B became known as a criminal to many union members who did not know the facts well," and "Mr. A's actions cannot be considered for the public interest."

However, the Supreme Court judged that Mr. A's act of distributing the judgment documents was for the public interest and thus not defamation. The court explained, "If it is recognized that the embezzlement by Mr. C, the cooperative's chairman B, occurred, B would be obligated to compensate for the damages suffered by the cooperative or could be dismissed from the chairman position," and "Whether B is responsible is a matter concerning the interest and concern of all union members."

It further ruled, "Even if there is no proof that the stated facts are true, if the actor believed them to be true and had reasonable grounds to believe so, there is no illegality."