"'Jae-su-eop-seo Juk-eot-da' Offensive Doctor Criticism Leaflet... Supreme Court Rules Not Defamation"

Supreme Court Issues Consecutive Rulings Broadly Recognizing 'Freedom of Expression and Press'

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has issued consecutive rulings that guarantee the importance of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, cautioning against the excessive expansion of defamation charges and reasonably limiting their scope of establishment.

The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Kim Jae-hyung) announced on the 19th that it overturned the original ruling that sentenced Mr. A, who was indicted on defamation charges, to a fine of 500,000 won, and remanded the case to the Uijeongbu District Court.

Mr. A, who lost his mother due to a medical accident, distributed leaflets in front of the hospital containing statements that the surgeon said, "The quack doctor’s surgery was lucky to survive, but my surgery was unlucky and she died," which were considered abusive remarks.

The first trial sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 3 million won, judging that he defamed by stating false facts, but the second trial reduced the fine to 500,000 won, recognizing that he stated facts.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that defamation charges could not be applied. It was considered that Mr. A’s distribution of leaflets was for the "public interest."

The court stated, "The doctor made emotional and insulting remarks during the process of meeting with the bereaved family that could be understood as disregarding the patient's life," and "This revealed the qualifications and attitude of the medical professional."

Additionally, the Supreme Court overturned and remanded a case where about ten high school classmates participated in a group KakaoTalk chatroom and publicly defamed the victim with the intent to slander. The first and second trials had suspended the sentence of a 500,000 won fine for the defendant.

The court judged, "This post concerns the interests of the social group composed of classmates participating in the chatroom," and "It includes the purpose of warning the classmates."

Furthermore, the Supreme Court did not recognize the possibility of dissemination or intent in a case where a villa manager couple was indicted after blaming a tenant over the phone while explaining the delay in leak repair work.

The first and second trials sentenced the couple to a fine of 2 million won, but the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Suwon District Court with the view that the defamation charges should be acquitted.

A Supreme Court official explained, "As elements of defamation charges, publicity and intent to slander must be interpreted strictly, and when the public interest under Article 310 of the Criminal Act as a justification for illegality is at issue, freedom of expression can be recognized more broadly."