Defendant told fellow inmate victim shared 'same charge'
Defense argued statement was expression of emotion, not fact
Court found remark sufficient to damage reputation
A court has ruled that indirectly disclosing a fellow inmate's criminal charge inside a prison constitutes defamation under South Korean law.
According to legal sources, Judge Woo Yeong-sik of the Daegu District Court's Western Branch handed down a guilty verdict in late August against a woman in her 40s, identified only as A, who had been charged with defamation. The court sentenced her to a fine of 500,000 won ($373), suspended for one year.
According to the facts established by the court, A was accused of disclosing the criminal charge of a fellow inmate, identified as C, to another inmate, B, in October 2024 while other prisoners were present in the waiting room of the prison's medical unit. A was found to have said: "Now I understand why C took D's side and spoke up for her — it's because they share the same charge." C and D had both been convicted of murdering their children and were serving their sentences at the time.
Prosecutors indicted A on charges of defamation by stating facts.
During the trial, A pleaded not guilty. Her defense argued that she had merely expressed emotion or opinion — along the lines of "birds of a feather flock together" — and had not stated any specific fact.
The court rejected the argument.
"Taking into account the context of the conversation between A and her fellow inmates at the time, A's remark conveyed that the victim's charge involved causing someone's death," the court said, adding that the statement was "sufficient to damage reputation in a general and objective sense."
The court also noted that A had acknowledged, both to investigators and in court, that she had made a remark to the effect of "birds of a feather flock together." It found it established that A had said, in substance, that she and the victim shared the same charge and therefore associated with each other — directed at a fellow inmate with whom A had a poor relationship.
The court added that witness testimony contained no inherent contradictions or irrationality, and that the overall circumstances of the case lent it high credibility.
However, the court opted for a suspended fine rather than a harsher penalty.
In explaining the sentence, the court said it was difficult to regard the act of indirectly mentioning a fellow inmate's criminal charge inside a prison as carrying a high degree of culpability, given the circumstances of the case, the nature and content of the statement, the manner in which it was expressed, and the extent of the reputational harm caused.
The ruling is now final. Neither side appealed the first-instance verdict.
notstrong@heraldcorp.com
