Court to Observe Constitutional Court's Unconstitutionality Ruling in Bad Fathers Appeal After First Trial Not Guilty Verdict

Constitutional Review of Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act on 'Defamation by Stating Facts'

Capture of the Bad Fathers website.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The trial of Goo Bon-chang (57), the operator of the Bad Fathers website, who was prosecuted for defamation after publicly revealing the identities of parents who do not pay child support on the internet but was acquitted in the first trial, has been temporarily suspended until the Constitutional Court issues a ruling on the unconstitutionality of Article 307, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Act, which punishes defamation by stating facts.

The Criminal Division 1 of the Suwon High Court (Chief Judge Noh Kyung-pil) stated on the 17th at Goo’s first appeal trial, "We will not conclude this trial and will wait until the Constitutional Court's decision is made."

The court explained the background, saying, "Considering that the Constitutional Court held a public hearing on this provision last week, a conclusion is expected soon. This provision is a major premise of this case, and if it is ruled unconstitutional, there will be issues of retrial retroactively for related cases."

Article 307 (Defamation) of the Criminal Act stipulates in Paragraph 1 that "Anyone who publicly states facts to defame a person shall be punished by imprisonment or detention for not more than two years or a fine not exceeding 5 million won," thereby imposing criminal penalties such as imprisonment even if the published facts are true but damage another person's honor.

Paragraph 2 of the same article states, "Anyone who publicly states false facts to defame a person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years, suspension of qualifications for not more than ten years, or a fine not exceeding 10 million won," imposing heavier penalties if the published content is false.

However, Article 310 (Justification) provides an exception by stipulating that "Acts under Article 307, Paragraph 1 shall not be punished if the facts are true and solely related to the public interest," so defamation does not apply if the published facts are true and related to the public interest.

Article 70 (Penalties) of the Information and Communications Network Act, which punishes defamation acts using the internet or social networking services (SNS) such as KakaoTalk or Facebook, stipulates in Paragraph 1 that "Anyone who publicly reveals facts through an information and communications network with the purpose of defaming a person and damages another person's honor shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding 30 million won," also punishing defamation by stating facts.

Earlier, on the afternoon of the 10th, the Constitutional Court held a public hearing on the constitutional complaint case regarding the "defamation by stating facts" clause stipulated in Article 307, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Act in the grand bench.

Goo’s lawyer said, "Although the defamation charge under the Information and Communications Network Act applied to the defendant requires the purpose of defamation as a condition, which differs from defamation under the Criminal Act, the court seems to have judged that the two provisions are aligned."

Goo is accused of damaging individuals' honor by publicly revealing on the Bad Fathers website the photos, names, ages, addresses, occupations, and unpaid child support information of people reported as parents who do not pay child support.

Previously, the prosecution received complaints from five parents whose information was disclosed on Bad Fathers from September to October 2018, investigated the case, and after receiving opinions from the Prosecutor's Citizen Committee, filed a summary indictment against Goo with a fine of 3 million won in May last year, but the court referred the case to a formal trial.

In the first trial held in January as a jury trial at Goo’s request, his actions were recognized as being for the "public interest," and he was acquitted.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.