Song Young-gil, the representative of Sonamudang, filed a lawsuit seeking approximately 100 million won in damages against the YouTube channel ‘Shinuihansu,’ which raised various illegal allegations against him, but he lost the case.
According to the legal community on the 4th, Judge Kim Hyo-yeon of the Civil Division 201 at the Seoul Central District Court ruled against Song in the damages lawsuit he filed against the operator of ‘Shinuihansu’ and others.
Previously, Shinuihansu raised suspicions through its broadcasts that Song was involved in a jeonse fraud gate. It also claimed that the Peace and Livelihood Research Institute (Meoksayeon) was a support organization that assisted Song from the outside during the 2021 party representative election at the party convention.
The court stated, “Based solely on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it has not been proven that the allegations are false,” and added, “Although there were statements that could be seen as false based on somewhat reckless inferences, there were circumstances that raised suspicion.”
Regarding the allegation raised by Shinuihansu that “Meoksayeon is a warehouse for illegal funds for Song’s party representative primary election,” the court noted that considering Song is being prosecuted and tried on charges of receiving illegal political funds through Meoksayeon, it is difficult to regard this as false.
As for the suspicion that Song was behind Nam Mo, a jeonse fraudster in Michuhol-gu, Incheon, the court judged that “it is difficult to see this as a statement of false facts, as it presented the content of reports on objectively verifiable facts and added evaluations thereof.”
Regarding Song’s definitive expression that he was directly involved in selecting the developer for the Gangwon Free Economic Zone development project, the court said, “Although there is room to consider this a false fact, it is difficult to see it as an act of defamation with the purpose of slander, as it was a statement made for the public interest with substantial reason to believe it was true,” and ruled it cannot be considered an illegal act.
Furthermore, the court added, “Although YouTube broadcasts exert considerable influence and the harm caused by indiscriminately produced false and manipulated information is not insignificant, and the need for regulation is increasingly emphasized, it is difficult to consider the public’s trust level to be equivalent to that of broadcasters,” and “It is difficult to recognize the defendants’ obligation to verify facts to the extent generally required of the press.”
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
