A man in his 20s was acquitted of charges after using the term 'Yongpal-i' to disparage an electronics seller on an internet shopping mall bulletin board.
Although the expression is insulting, it was deemed a lawful act and therefore not illegal.
According to the legal community on the 17th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Kwon Young-jun) upheld the lower court's acquittal of Lee (25), who was charged with insult.
The court stated, "The lower court found that the facts of the case constituted a lawful act and thus did not amount to a crime, overturning the first trial's guilty verdict and acquitting the defendant," adding, "Upon reviewing the lower court's reasoning in light of relevant laws and records, there is no error in logic or experience, no violation of the limits of free evaluation of evidence, nor any misinterpretation of the law regarding lawful acts," thereby dismissing the appeal.
Lee, who lives in Ulsan, was charged with insult after posting the phrase "This is the pinnacle of Yongpal-i" in the 'Q&A' section of an internet shopping mall operated by electronics seller A on February 15, 2021, in response to a post selling a certain computer-related product for 400,000 won.
The actual price of the product was less than 200,000 won, but it was out of stock at the time, making it difficult to obtain.
The first trial court found Lee guilty of insult and sentenced him to a fine of 500,000 won.
The court noted that before Lee posted his comment, another post saying "400,000 won??? ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ You might as well just mark it as out of stock" had been made, and that Lee's post followed. It also acknowledged that the product was temporarily out of stock and that the usual selling price was less than half of the listed price.
The court stated, "Based on these facts, it appears the defendant posted the comment suspecting the victim was exploiting the product's out-of-stock status to make excessive profits or did not actually have the product," but also judged that "'Yongpal-i' is a derogatory term for electronics sellers, and the phrase 'This is the pinnacle of Yongpal-i' is an insulting expression that conveys abstract judgment or contempt that could lower the victim's social evaluation."
It continued, "The defendant used only contemptuous terms without any normal expressions to criticize the victim's actions, and considering that the expression used cannot be seen as 'not excessively malicious,' the defendant's act constitutes insult and cannot be regarded as a lawful act consistent with social norms."
However, the verdict was overturned in the second trial.
Lee appealed the first trial's decision, arguing that his post was not insulting and that he had no intent to insult the victim.
Nevertheless, the second trial court also recognized that Lee's act constituted insult under criminal law.
The court stated, "The defendant knew that 'Yongpal-i' is used in contexts criticizing electronics sellers' monopolies, price manipulation, and selling counterfeit goods. The defendant wrote the post suspecting the victim of selling counterfeit goods. Considering the specific content, meaning, circumstances, and context of the expression, the post is a contemptuous expression that could lower the victim's social evaluation, and the defendant's intent to insult can be sufficiently recognized."
On the other hand, the court accepted Lee's claim of lawful act, stating, "The post is a lawful act not violating social norms and thus the illegality is excused under Article 20 of the Criminal Act."
The court first cited relevant Supreme Court precedents.
The Supreme Court previously stated, "Even if a short post on an internet bulletin board sharing opinions on a specific matter contains insulting expressions, if the post, when viewed in continuity and overall with other agreeing opinions, can be evaluated as emphasizing or compressing one's opinion on whether the victim's attitude or the matter is reasonable based on objectively valid circumstances, and the expression is mainly about the victim's actions and not excessively malicious, then, barring special circumstances, the act of writing the post should be considered lawful and the illegality excused."
The court then explained why Lee's case could be evaluated as a lawful act.
First, the court stated, "The 'Q&A' section where the defendant wrote the post is a space where consumers freely express opinions about products they intend to purchase from sellers, and freedom of expression regarding products should be relatively broadly guaranteed."
It continued, "The post criticizes the victim's intention to exploit an unavailable product for excessive profit, which appears to be based on somewhat objectively valid circumstances. It can be evaluated as a compressed expression of opinions criticizing the victim's behavior, similar to many other posts criticizing the victim's conduct."
As grounds for this judgment, the court cited: ▲ The product was out of stock, but the victim posted a sales listing as if the product was immediately available, setting the price much higher than usual; ▲ Before Lee's post, a comment saying "400,000 won??? ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ You might as well just mark it as out of stock" was posted; ▲ After Lee's post, other comments such as "Haha, 400k. Have some conscience, just one should get caught, right?", "Really curious, does it even sell?? Is the product worth 400,000 won??? It has about 10 more heat sinks than the 150,000 won one," and "40 is crossing the line..." were posted.
Finally, the court judged, "Considering that the defendant posted only once and that aside from using the term 'Yongpal-i,' there were no other abusive or defamatory contents, the expression cannot be considered excessively malicious."
The Supreme Court also found no problem with the second trial court's judgment.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
