Spreading False Information After Trademark Negotiations Broke Down
The suspended prison sentence for the CEO of Yecheon Brewery, a makgeolli manufacturer who was put on trial for defamation during a trademark dispute with singer Youngtak, has been finalized.
On June 12, the First Division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Shin Sookhee) held the sentencing hearing for Baek, the CEO of Yecheon Brewery, and Jo, the branch manager of the same company, who were indicted for violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (defamation). The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling, which sentenced each of them to four months in prison, suspended for one year, along with 120 hours of community service.
Yecheon Brewery signed an advertising model contract with Youngtak in May 2020 and released and sold "Youngtak Makgeolli." After negotiations over the transfer of trademark rights between Yecheon Brewery and Youngtak broke down, CEO Baek and branch manager Jo were indicted for publicly spreading false information during the negotiation process, claiming that "Youngtak’s side demanded 5 billion KRW per year for three years, totaling 15 billion KRW." Jo was also charged with threatening Youngtak’s mother over the phone, stating that he would "damage Youngtak’s image and interfere with his entertainment career."
The first trial found both individuals guilty of all charges and sentenced each to six months in prison, suspended for one year, along with 120 hours of community service. In the second trial, the court applied factual defamation instead of simple defamation to some of Baek’s and Jo’s statements, reducing their sentences to four months in prison, suspended for one year, and 120 hours of community service. The appellate court determined that statements such as "Youngtak’s side demanded 5 billion KRW per year for three years, totaling 15 billion KRW" and "Youngtak’s mother said that the company would go bankrupt if ancestral rites were not performed" constituted factual defamation.
The Supreme Court stated, "The lower court’s decision did not misunderstand the legal principles regarding the establishment of defamation and intimidation," and dismissed both parties’ appeals.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
