Comments Saying "Dog Crossed the Rainbow Bridge Due to Over-treatment" Are Not Defamation

Court: Animal Hospitals Must Accept Free Expression of Opinions

A woman in her 50s who wrote a comment criticizing a hospital for excessive treatment after her dog died during treatment was acquitted of defamation charges.

On the 4th, Judge Kim Ji-young of the Incheon District Court Criminal Division 8 announced that she had acquitted Ms. A (54, female), who was indicted on defamation charges under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection.

Earlier, Ms. A was brought to trial on charges of defaming the operator of B Animal Hospital.

She took her dog to B Animal Hospital in Incheon in July 2021 after the dog showed symptoms of respiratory distress. The dog died two days after receiving treatment. Ms. A believed there was a problem with the animal hospital's treatment.

About a year and seven months later, in February of the following year, a post asking for information about B Animal Hospital appeared on an online bulletin board of a secondhand trading platform, saying, "Is the animal hospital near 00 Apartment good? Do they avoid excessive treatment?"

Ms. A commented on the post, saying, "At B, they gave excessive treatment, and my dog crossed the rainbow bridge in just two days," adding, "I'm leaving this trace so others don't regret like I did."

The next day, she wrote another comment, "I have many grievances and things to say, but I didn't want to deal with it at the time, so I just let it go," and "If someone says they are going to B Animal Hospital, I want to follow them and stop them, but ultimately it's their choice, so I close my eyes and don't interfere."

Regarding this case, the prosecution judged that Ms. A decided to have her dog hospitalized after hearing from the head of the animal hospital's treatment department in 2021 that the dog was in critical condition, and that blood tests and X-rays were subsequently performed.

The prosecution claimed that excessive treatment was not true and that the comments were made with the intent to defame the animal hospital, and filed a summary indictment against Ms. A in January last year, seeking a fine of 1 million won for defamation. Ms. A, feeling wronged, requested a formal trial three months later.

The court judged that it was difficult to conclude that Ms. A's comments were false and also hard to see that they were made with the intent to defame the animal hospital.

(This photo is not directly related to the article.) [Photo source=Pixabay]

Judge Kim Ji-young explained, "The comments written by Ms. A were 'user reviews' containing experiences and evaluations as a consumer who actually used B Animal Hospital," adding, "They can mostly be seen as expressions of subjective feelings or opinions."

She further stated, "Hospitals providing animal treatment services for profit should accept a certain degree of free expression of opinion by users."

Additionally, she said, "Ms. A received medical bills listing the same test items on the day of the dog's hospitalization and the following day, including ▲Blood test - CBC comprehensive test ▲Blood test - electrolyte and gas analysis ▲Blood chemistry test - full panel ▲Blood chemistry test - inflammation, immunity, tumor markers ▲Simple X-ray digital B 2 shots," and "Considering this situation, even if the term 'excessive treatment' is not accurate, it is difficult to see that she knowingly stated false facts."