Supreme Court Overturns and Remands Defamation Acquittal of Professor Park Yuha, Author of 'Comfort Women of the Empire'

1st Trial "No Defamation Crime Established" → 2nd Trial "Defamation by Stating Facts"
Court "Should Not Conclude Hidden Background or Motive in Academic Expression"

Park Yoo-ha, an emeritus professor at Sejong University who was prosecuted for defaming the honor of Japanese military comfort women victims in her book The Empire of Comfort Women, will undergo a retrial in the second instance.

Park Yoo-ha, Professor Emeritus at Sejong University.

The Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Noh Jung-hee) on the 26th overturned and remanded the lower court's ruling that sentenced Professor Park to a fine of 10 million won on charges of defamation, ruling the verdict as not guilty.

In 2013, Professor Park was indicted for defaming the honor of Japanese military comfort women victims by stating in her book The Empire of Comfort Women that "comfort women had a comrade-like relationship with the Japanese military and were prostitutes, and were not forcibly taken by the Japanese Empire."

The first trial court found that among the 35 expressions charged, 5 were factual statements, but the remaining 30 were merely opinions and thus did not constitute defamation. The court ruled not guilty, stating, "Since the statements referred to a historical group called comfort women, it is difficult to see that specific victims were identified."

On the other hand, the second trial court recognized 6 additional expressions as factual statements beyond the 5 acknowledged in the first trial. It judged that each expression constituted false facts and defamatory statements, identified the victims, and acknowledged intent to defame. The court sentenced Professor Park to a fine of 10 million won, stating, "These statements led readers to perceive facts differently from objective reality."

However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed. The Supreme Court held that the expressions deemed guilty by the second trial should be evaluated as academic claims or expressions of opinion by Professor Park, and thus are difficult to regard as factual statements punishable under defamation law.

The court stated, "There is no evidence that Professor Park violated ordinary research ethics, infringed on the victims' right to self-determination, or violated their privacy rights in a way that disregards their dignity," and added, "It does not appear that the expressions in question were used to deny forced mobilization by the Japanese military, claim that Korean comfort women voluntarily engaged in prostitution, or assert active cooperation with the Japanese military."

Furthermore, the court noted, "While Japan's responsibility for the Korean comfort women issue cannot be denied, there are clearly social structural factors such as imperialist ideology and traditional patriarchal order that contributed to the problem. Focusing solely on the former issue and escalating conflicts between the two countries is unlikely to help resolve the comfort women issue. It appears that the expressions were used to highlight this thematic awareness." The court concluded, "It is difficult to accept recognizing implied factual statements by hastily concluding the background or motives behind academic expressions without understanding them as academic expressions themselves."