Koh Young-joo, former chairman of the Broadcasting Culture Promotion Committee. yunhap newsThe acquittal of Koh Young-joo, the former chairman of the Korea Broadcasting Culture Promotion Association, who was charged with defamation for stating that President Moon Jae-in was a communist, has been confirmed. After Koh was acquitted at the retrial on the 11th, the prosecution did not file a re-appeal until 10 days passed. As the deadline for filing an appeal in the criminal trial passed, Koh’s trial ended with an acquittal following regarding four years and six months since the prosecution’s indictment was made.
It was a case of severe ups and downs in interpretations surrounding freedom of expression, such as mixed judgments from the first and second trial trials. The Supreme Court, which was the final trial, upheld the hand of the first trial judge. Koh’s remarks are ‘opinions’ and are judged to correspond to freedom of expression. The Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s sentence of 10 months in prison and two years of probation and returned the case to the Seoul Central District Court.
Is Wen a communist? Is it a ‘fact’ or an ‘opinion’?
When it was revealed that former chairman Koh said at a New Year’s party for a conservative group in January 2013, referring to then-Democratic United Party presidential candidate Moon as “a communist, and if this person becomes president, it is only a matter of time before our country becomes a red flag” was charged with defamation. After defining the Burim incident as a ‘communist movement’, it was the logic of former chairman Koh that President Moon, who defended the people involved in the incident, was also a ‘communist’. After the scandal, President Moon sued Koh for defamation in September 2015, and in September 2017, two years later, the prosecution indicted Koh without detention on charges of defamation due to timely and false information.
President Moon Jae-in. yunhap newsThe judiciary has gradually expanded the scope of freedom of expression over the past four years, from the first trial to the remandatory trial. The first trial and the Supreme Court found the expression ‘communist’ not as factual, but as the subjective opinion of former Chairman Koh, and ruled not guilty. The essence of the Supreme Court’s judgment is that ‘communist’ corresponds to ‘freedom of expression’ because it is Koh’s personal opinion on President Moon.
The court of first instance examined whether Koh’s remarks were true and whether there was an intention to damage his reputation on purpose. The court judged that “‘liberal democracy’ and ‘communism’ are comprehensive concepts that implicitly include numerous conceptual elements.” To determine whether this is true, the majority of the people must have a unified view of ‘communism’.
“If you look at the data and statements of former Chairman Koh, there is no intention to maliciously slander (President Moon) or to give personal insults, but rather, it seems that he is obsessed with maintaining the system that he believed to be a liberal democracy.” It is difficult to admit intentional damage.”
On the other hand, the appellate court sentenced former Chairman Koh to 10 months in prison and two years of probation, saying, “The statement of being a communist is not a simple expression of opinion, but a timely matter of materialized false facts that can be verified as a whole.” This is an interpretation opposite to the judgment of the first trial court, which saw the remarks of former chairman Koh as ‘opinion’ when referring to President Moon as a communist.
He continued, “In light of sibling rivalry and ideological conflict, the expression “communist” is an expression that lowers the social evaluation of the victim more than any other expression. Looking at it, it is difficult to see that Koh’s remarks were made legally within the scope of freedom of expression.”
A different perspective on ‘communists’
The judgment of the second trial court that ‘communist’ is an “expression that lowers social evaluation” was overturned once once more by the Supreme Court.
yunhap newsThe Supreme Court said, “Even if the expression ‘communist’ is used in connection with North Korea, it is not easy to conclude that it is a timely statement of specific facts that can damage the person’s reputation unless there are other specific circumstances that may threaten the basic order of liberal democracy in the Republic of Korea. can’t,” he judged. “Today, our society does not show a negative view of those who take a favorable position toward North Korea unless they threaten the basic principle of free democracy, which is the basic principle of the Republic of Korea’s constitution,” he added.
In addition, “taking into account all circumstances, such as the circumstances of the former chairman’s remarks, it should be viewed as a part of the verification process through the exchange of opinions and debates regarding the victim’s political ideology, a public figure.” It cannot be regarded as a departure from the limits of freedom of expression.”
It is also noteworthy that the Supreme Court compared the scope of freedom of expression to a ‘rich table’ while broadly interpreting it. The Supreme Court emphasized, “The ability to express different opinions is proof that democracy is alive.”
He also warned once morest excessive judicial intervention itself, saying that it is undesirable for the court to directly intervene in a debate or debate regarding political ideology and impose judicial responsibility.
