Charged with defamation through false statements under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization
Defendant argued no awareness of falsehood, said post served public interest
First-instance fine of 3 million won upheld after neither side appealed
A blogger who falsely claimed that the lead investigator in the so-called Miryang gang rape case had committed secondary abuse against the victim has been fined.
According to legal sources, Judge Kang Mi-hee of the Jinju Branch of Changwon District Court sentenced the blogger, identified only as A, to a fine of 3 million won ($2,240) in August on charges of defamation through false statements under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization.
A was indicted on charges of defaming B, who had served as the lead investigator in the Miryang gang rape case.
According to facts established by the court, A posted an entry in June 2024 on a personal blog referencing the Miryang gang rape case, claiming that "the lead investigator at the time hurled extreme verbal abuse at the victim, saying things like 'Why did you come to Miryang and stir up trouble?' and 'Weren't you the one who came on to them first?' — committing secondary abuse." The post also disclosed B's personal information, including his birth year, police career and current occupation, alongside identifying him as the lead investigator in the case.
At the time A published the post, exposé-style content about the perpetrators in the Miryang gang rape case was spreading widely across social media and other online platforms. In the process, however, false information also proliferated indiscriminately — including cases in which the wrong individuals were identified as perpetrators.
B had not made the remarks attributed to him by A during the investigation. A had encountered claims circulating in some quarters and posted the content based on speculation that B had made those statements. Prosecutors charged A with defamation through false statements under the information and communications network law, finding that A had publicly spread false information online with the intent to defame B.
During the trial, A denied the charges. A's defense argued that there had been no awareness of falsehood and no intent to defame, and that "the primary motive and purpose of the post was to serve the public interest."
The court rejected A's arguments and found the charges proven.
The court noted that A "posted the text and video without making any effort to verify the accuracy of the content," adding that the post "revealed the subject's name, age, police career and current social activities."
The court further said that given A's speculative remarks suggesting misconduct in other investigations and the insulting language used in reference to B's police career and social activities, "it is reasonable to conclude that A had at least a contingent awareness of the falsity of the statements."
The court also said it "cannot evaluate A's conduct as having been for the public interest," adding that "it is reasonable to conclude that A posted the content with the intent to defame the victim — going beyond criticism of how the Miryang case was handled or of those involved."
The ruling was finalized as issued. Neither A nor the prosecutor appealed the first-instance verdict.
notstrong@heraldcorp.com
