"Dog Dies in Two Days Due to Misdiagnosis" Defamatory Comments... Acquitted Due to 'Public Interest'

Court: "Public interest posts that help decision-making"

A woman in her 50s who was prosecuted for posting defamatory comments on an inquiry about an animal hospital on an internet community was acquitted.

On the 3rd, the Incheon District Court Criminal Division 8 (Presiding Judge Kim Ji-young) announced that it had acquitted Ms. A (54), who was indicted for violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (defamation).

Ms. A was charged with posting a defamatory comment on a local community inquiry titled "Is the treatment at B Animal Hospital in Michuhol-gu, Incheon good?" in February 2022, stating, "Due to B Hospital's excessive treatment, my pet dog crossed the rainbow bridge in two days. I am leaving this trace so others won’t regret like me." Earlier, on July 17, 2021, Ms. A had hospitalized her dog at the animal hospital after it showed symptoms such as breathing difficulties, and when the dog died on the 19th, just 26 hours after hospitalization, she became dissatisfied with B Hospital's treatment process.

The prosecution argued that Ms. A decided on inpatient treatment despite being informed by the head of B Hospital’s treatment department that the dog’s condition was critical, and that the claim that B Hospital performed unnecessary treatments was false and defamatory, thus prosecuting Ms. A. However, the court ruled, "It is difficult to see that Ms. A had the intent to defame the victim, and it is also difficult to conclude that the content of the posted comment is false."

In particular, the court’s judgment was influenced by the fact that Ms. A received separate medical bills from the hospital on the day of the dog's admission and the following day, each listing the same examination items: ▲ Blood test - CBC comprehensive test ▲ Blood test - electrolyte and gas analysis ▲ Blood chemistry test - full panel ▲ Blood chemistry test - inflammation, immunity, tumor markers ▲ Simple radiography digital B 2 shots. The court explained, "Considering the medical bills Ms. A received from the hospital, even if the term 'excessive treatment' is not accurate, it is difficult to see that she knowingly stated false facts."

Furthermore, the court stated, "Ms. A’s comment concerns the public interest by helping pet owners seeking information about the animal hospital," and "Even if there were private interests or motives such as complaints about the hospital, it is difficult to conclude that Ms. A had the intent to defame." It added, "Ms. A’s comment is a review containing her personal experience and subjective evaluation as a consumer who actually used the hospital," and "Victims who provide animal medical services for profit must accept a certain degree of free expression of opinion by users."

Meanwhile, in August last year, the Seoul High Court ordered Mr. B, who posted defamatory posts about an animal hospital on an online cafe and social networking services (SNS), to delete the related posts within 10 days and prohibited him from posting defamatory posts on internet boards in the future. The court also imposed a penalty of 500,000 KRW per day for failure to delete posts and 500,000 KRW per post for new defamatory posts. Mr. B had repeatedly posted online that his pet dog died due to a veterinarian’s misdiagnosis, and the animal hospital director filed a defamation and business obstruction injunction with the court. The first trial court recognized freedom of expression and ruled in favor of Mr. B, but the appellate court judged that the defamatory posts were neither true nor related to public interest and thus constituted defamation.