'Comment Alpa' Defamation of Competitors, Kim Hyungjoong Etoos CEO Probation Confirmed

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has finalized the guilty verdict against executives of a famous entrance exam education company who were prosecuted for hiring 'comment part-timers' to post comments criticizing competitors.

On the 28th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yusook) upheld the lower court's ruling sentencing Kim Hyungjoong, CEO of Etoos, to 1 year and 6 months in prison with a 2-year probation for charges including obstruction of business.

The prosecution found that from May 2012 for over five years, Kim and others signed a contract worth around 1 billion KRW with viral marketing company A to promote their own instructors and post about 200,000 posts and comments criticizing competitor instructors. In particular, the so-called 'comment part-timers' posted comments intensively on internet sites and communities frequently visited by exam takers, following A company's guidelines.

The first trial court judged that Etoos executive director Jeong, who managed the online business sector, was responsible and sentenced him to 2 years in prison with 3 years probation. Meanwhile, Kim was acquitted. The court pointed out that Jeong "posted defamatory comments about competitors damaging their reputation and manipulated portal related search terms using macros for self-promotion," adding that "this went beyond normal advertising or promotion and caused serious side effects." Regarding Kim, the court acquitted him on the grounds that Jeong independently operated the online business sector where the 'comment part-timers' worked, and Kim was not directly involved in the crime.

However, the appellate court reversed the verdict, stating "As CEO, Kim was aware of and approved the comment operations," sentencing Kim to 1 year and 6 months in prison with 2 years probation and Jeong to 1 year and 6 months imprisonment without suspension. The court stated, "The defendants' actions caused confusion among exam takers and hindered fair competition in the online lecture industry," and "Considering that these acts were systematically carried out through professional marketing and advertising, strict punishment is necessary."

The Supreme Court's ruling on this day was no different. The court stated, "Based on testimonies from business personnel and emails, the lower court's judgment that Kim was informed of the comment operations, recognized them, and conspired in the crime is not mistaken."