Is Spreading Rumors That a Neighbor Is a Cult Member Defamation? Appellate Court Overturns Ruling

First Trial: Not Guilty Due to Lack of Proof of Falsity
Second Trial: Guilty Verdict
Court: "Significant Psychological Distress to Victim... Willful Negligence Recognized"

An appellate court has ruled that spreading rumors about a neighbor living in the same apartment complex being a member of a particular religion-specifically, a group known as a cult-constitutes defamation.

On January 10, Yonhap News, citing legal sources, reported that a 37-year-old individual, referred to as A, was brought to trial on charges of having told an acquaintance on four separate occasions in June 2023 that a fellow apartment resident, B, was a member of Church C.

A stated, "While directing traffic in front of an elementary school, I saw B coming out of the Church C building," and this statement eventually reached B, the alleged victim.

A scene from the drama "Hellbound," which centers on a cult religion. The photo is not directly related to the content of the article. Netflix

In response, B filed a criminal complaint against A for defamation by spreading false information. B asserted, "At the time, I was at work and have never been to the Church C building," while A countered, "I saw B wearing a mask coming out of the building, followed them, and confirmed their face."

The court of first instance acquitted the defendant, ruling that it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that A’s statement was false. While the court found the victim’s testimony more credible, it concluded that it could not definitively determine that A made the statement knowing it was false. The court also explained that it could not rule out the possibility that the victim was near the Church C building during a break or while out of the office.

Unusually, the first instance court added a remark at the end of its verdict, stating, "The not guilty verdict does not mean that the defendant’s statement is acknowledged as true or that the defendant is without fault." The court further pointed out, "The defendant caused inconvenience and distress to several people, including the victim, by spreading unnecessary gossip."

However, the Criminal Division 2 of the Chuncheon District Court, which reviewed the case on appeal after the prosecution challenged the initial verdict, sentenced A to a fine of 3 million won. The appellate court found, "Considering the victim’s consistent testimony and the statements of workplace colleagues, the defendant’s claim of having witnessed the event is based merely on abstract possibilities and doubts." The court also noted that, given the general public’s negative perception of Church C, there was a high likelihood that A’s statement would be circulated among acquaintances, thus fulfilling the requirement for public dissemination.

The court further observed that the defendant only briefly saw the masked individual, followed them, but did not speak to them, and had no solid basis to be certain it was the victim. On this basis, the court concluded, "It appears the defendant made the statement while recognizing the possibility that the person they saw was not the victim," thereby acknowledging willful negligence (dolus eventualis).

The appellate court stated, "It is difficult to regard the degree of harm to the victim’s reputation caused by this statement as minor, and the victim appears to have suffered significant psychological distress." The court added, "Nevertheless, the defendant has shown no signs of remorse."