YouTuber Pansuk, whose real name is Kim Min-seok. [Captured from social media]
YouTuber Pansuk, whose real name is Kim Min-seok. [Captured from social media]

A nurse who downloaded videos by "cyber wrecker" YouTuber Pansuk — real name Kim Min-seok, who has 500,000 subscribers — and reposted them with captions such as "nuisance," "rampage" and "picking a fight" has been acquitted, with the verdict now finalized.

The court said the expressions were "a relatively objective description of the victim's (Pansuk's) conduct" and were "within the range that any reasonable person with common sense could accept." It added that the case "could also produce public-interest effects, including social criticism of the behavior of cyber-wrecker YouTubers, a shift in public awareness, and systemic reform," and acquitted the nurse, identified only as A.

According to legal sources Tuesday, the Daegu District Court's Criminal Division 3-1, presided over by Judge Jeong Se-yeong, acquitted A in the second trial on charges of defamation under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection — upholding the first-instance acquittal with a ruling issued in June.

According to facts established by the court, A edited and posted a video originally uploaded by Pansuk to an online community around March 2024. The footage showed Pansuk pointing a camera at a doctor and a patient inside a hospital, then shouting "What did you do to me?" after being told to stop filming. Pansuk was also found to have yelled at hospital staff, demanding to know why he was being treated like a criminal, and to have made sexually harassing remarks.

Other clips showed Pansuk shouting and using profanity in public places, including at a crosswalk and inside a subway station. He was also seen picking a fight with a woman passing by. A downloaded the footage and reposted it with captions including "unpleasant," "prank," "nuisance," "rampage," "picking a fight" and "sexual harassment."

Pansuk filed a criminal complaint against A for defamation under the information and communications network law, and A was indicted last year.

During the investigation and trial, Pansuk argued that it was not the videos themselves but the captions and accompanying text A had added that damaged his reputation. Police and prosecutors concluded the charges were warranted and referred the case to a formal trial. The court, however, found A not guilty.

The first-instance court acquitted A in August last year.

The court said Pansuk, "as a person with considerable public recognition and more than 500,000 subscribers, has words and actions that can influence many people," and noted that "his conduct could leave room for criminal liability, including obstruction of business, insult, and causing a public disturbance."

It further ruled that A "had added descriptions to some of the videos the victim himself filmed and made public," and that "this alone is difficult to view as an infringement of the victim's reputation."

While acknowledging that the captions contained negative assessments — including "unpleasant," "prank," "nuisance," "rampage," "picking a fight" and "sexual harassment" — the court said they "appear to be a relatively objective description of the victim's conduct" and were "within the range that an ordinary person with common sense would accept."

The first-instance court also said that making the videos public "could produce public-interest effects, including social criticism of YouTubers who profit from producing content that invites criminal liability or public condemnation, a shift in public awareness, and systemic reform." It added that alerting the public to the difficulties faced by nurses appeared to be one of A's motivations for posting the videos.

Prosecutors appealed, but the appeals court reached the same conclusion, also acquitting A in June.

The appeals court said Pansuk "has made it the essence of his professional activity to voluntarily expose his daily life to an audience of more than 500,000 subscribers," and that he "is in a position where he must tolerate a degree of external evaluation and criticism."

It added that "the conduct shown in the videos took place in public spaces, including a medical facility and a crosswalk," and therefore "falls within a domain that can legitimately attract public interest."

The court said it was "difficult to view A's act of moving videos the victim had posted himself to another online community as conduct that lowered the social esteem in which the victim is held." It also found that the captions — including "nuisance" — "amount to a summary corresponding to the objective scenes in the video" and were not "beyond the range of impressions an ordinary person would form."

The appeals court likewise found "a recognized connection to raising awareness of the difficulties faced by healthcare workers and promoting a shift in public perception," and said there was "sufficient room to conclude that the motivation for posting the videos was in the public interest."

It added that "even if some negative sentiment toward the victim was present, it is difficult to find that there was an intent to defame."

The ruling is now final. Prosecutors did not appeal the second-instance verdict to the Supreme Court.


notstrong@heraldcorp.com