▲ The symbol of the Constitutional Court. (Etoday DB)
Even though the comments written by the commenter did not have the purpose of slandering a specific person, a decision was made to the effect that it was inappropriate to recognize only ‘some expressions’ among them as slander and to grant a suspended indictment.
According to the legal community on the 8th, the Constitutional Court recently decided in the case of cancellation of the suspended indictment requested by Mr. Shin, “The suspended indictment imposed by the prosecution on the applicant in the relevant case is revoked because it violates the applicant’s right to equality and the right to pursue happiness.” .
Mr. Shin, who was preparing for the bar exam, responded to a news article about former rhythmic gymnast Son Yeon-jae posted on an internet portal site in 2016 saying, “She was the beneficiary of the Viner Division’s sexual manipulation… “He posted a comment saying: Son Yeon-jae, who had nothing to do with Viner’s sexual manipulation, sued Shin for defamation by publishing false information.
Afterwards, Mr. Shin received a suspended indictment for this case, but he filed a constitutional appeal requesting that it be revoked. It is claimed that his comment was intended to enhance the player’s reputation, but the prosecution arbitrarily judged that it had the purpose of ‘slander’ by extracting only some expressions without investigating the full contents of the comment.
The police investigated the case and forwarded it to the prosecution, who suspended the indictment without further investigation.
Afterwards, Mr. Shin, who requested a constitutional appeal, submitted the full comments to the Constitutional Court as evidence. According to the content, Mr. Shin said, ‘Let’s say the beneficiary of Viner Division’s sexual manipulation was Son Yeon-jae. Player Shin also studied abroad in Russia for 30 million won per month, but why are his grades so bad? Also, this time, there was a Japanese Limo player in the Russian delegation, and if Viner is so omniscient, why did he not allow that player to advance to the finals?’
The Constitutional Court ruled that “the claimant used the expression ‘a beneficiary of Ja Viner Division’s sexual manipulation’ in the context of cheering on the plaintiff while claiming that the plaintiff was not a beneficiary of sexual manipulation.”
He continued, “It cannot be concluded that the claimant had any intention or purpose to harm the complainant’s reputation, so it would be said that there was no ‘intent to slander the complainant.’” “Nevertheless, the prosecution did not sufficiently investigate the full text of the comment, and the text that was extracted and sent was sent. “We judged that the ‘purpose to slander the complainant’ was recognized based on only some expressions, but this was a notable lack of investigation and a serious misunderstanding of the law,” he said.