First Trial: 1 Million Won Fine → Second Trial "No Illegality" Acquittal
Supreme Court "Beyond Legitimate Criticism" → Remand Trial, 500,000 Won Fine
A fine was confirmed for a man in his 40s who left a comment calling singer and actress Suzy the "National Hotel Woman." The reason was that the comment demeaned Suzy by sexualizing her, going beyond the bounds of legitimate criticism.
The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Ahn Cheol-sang) on the 27th upheld the lower court's ruling that sentenced Mr. A, who was tried on charges of insult, to a fine of 500,000 won.
Mr. A was prosecuted for posting defamatory comments such as "a bubble created by media play, just the National Hotel Woman" on an article related to a movie starring singer and actress Suzy (30, real name Bae Suzy) in 2015.
The trial focused on whether freedom of expression regarding a celebrity's private life should be more broadly protected than that of non-celebrities. The lower court rulings were divided. The first trial court judged that expressions used by Mr. A such as "bubble," "National Hotel Woman," "movie flop," and "has-been" were sufficiently insulting to lower the victim's social evaluation and sentenced him to a fine of 1 million won.
On the other hand, the second trial court acquitted him, stating, "When judging the application of insult charges against public figures such as celebrities, the same standards as those applied to non-celebrities cannot always be applied." The second trial court viewed Mr. A's expressions as somewhat harsh and rough but not illegal or against social norms.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that while expressions like "movie flop" and "has-been" could be considered criticism of Suzy's public domain and fall within the scope of freedom of expression despite their harshness, the term "National Hotel Woman" was deemed to demean Suzy by sexualizing her.
The appellate court stated, "'National Hotel Woman' exposes the victim's private life, implying an image opposite to the pure image the victim had previously appealed to the public, and demeans the victim by sexualizing her. This can be evaluated as a contemptuous expression that lowers the social evaluation of the female celebrity victim and goes beyond the scope of legitimate criticism, making it difficult to view as a lawful act," and remanded the case to the second trial court with a guilty verdict.
In the retrial at the second trial court (remand trial), following the Supreme Court's judgment, the part concerning the expression "National Hotel Woman" was regarded as an insult, and Mr. A was sentenced to a fine of 500,000 won. The retrial at the Supreme Court (retrial) also confirmed the ruling, stating, "There is no error in the original judgment in violating the rules of logic and experience, exceeding the limits of free evaluation, or misinterpreting the legal principles regarding the establishment of insult charges."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
