Man Acquitted for Posting Professor’s Sexual Misconduct in Department Group Chat... Here’s Why

Fined in Summary Order, Acquitted in Formal Trial
Court: "Defendant's Actions Were for the Public Interest"

A man who received a summary order and a fine for posting information about a professor’s sexual misconduct in a department group chat has been acquitted in a formal trial.

According to Yonhap News on September 21, the Cheonan Branch of Daejeon District Court Criminal Division 9 (Presiding Judge Park Hyerim) acquitted Mr. A, who had been charged with violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (defamation).

In March of last year, Mr. A posted information about Professor B’s sexual misconduct in a social networking service (SNS) group chat, organized by students of a certain department at a university in Asan, South Chungcheong Province. The post included allegations that “Professor B gave A+ grades to female students of his choosing, called them to his office or other locations to sexually harass them, or sent inappropriate messages via SNS.”

Cheonan Branch of Daejeon District Court. Yonhap News

In fact, from 2016 to 2022, Professor B repeatedly engaged in similar conduct with one to four female students each year. As a result, in July 2023, he received a three-month suspension and was excluded from teaching in the second semester of that year. When Professor B returned to teaching in 2024, students protested, citing the lack of an apology or measures to prevent recurrence.

Mr. A, who had been concerned about this issue along with the victims, posted details of Professor B’s sexual misconduct in the group chat, which was only accessible to current students. In the post, he stated, “Victims came forward because they did not want juniors to experience the same thing.” Due to this post, Mr. A received a summary order from the prosecution imposing a fine for defamation. Disagreeing with this, Mr. A requested a formal trial.

The court acquitted Mr. A, citing a Supreme Court precedent that “if the facts disclosed are for the public interest, the intent to slander is denied.” The court explained, “While it can be seen that the post included an intent to criticize Professor B, it also aimed to warn current students who might register for the class in the future,” and added, “There is room to consider that the defendant’s motivation and purpose were in the public interest.”