Talking Bad About a Friend... Supreme Court: "If Publicity Is Low, It Is Not Defamation"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that even if false information about a third party was conveyed during a private conversation between two people, if the possibility of dissemination is not proven, it cannot be punished as defamation.

On the 24th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Kim Jae-hyung) overturned the lower court's guilty verdict in the appeal trial of Mr. A, who was charged with defamation, and remanded the case to the Cheongju District Court.

In May 2014, Mr. A, after a phone call with the victim Mr. B in his office, told a friend nearby false information about Mr. B, saying, "She divorced her husband, and her son is disabled, but she still tries to live by giving money." Mr. B, who overheard the statement while the call was still ongoing, recorded it and filed a complaint against Mr. A, who was then prosecuted for defamation.

The first trial recognized Mr. A's guilt and sentenced him to a fine of 700,000 won. The second trial also acknowledged Mr. A's guilt. However, the second trial found that Mr. A's statement was not intentional and that he showed little interest by continuing the conversation on a different topic with his friend afterward, concluding that the possibility and publicity of dissemination were not significant, thus overturning the fine and suspending the sentence.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that strict proof of publicity is necessary and that the case should be retried. Defamation requires the act to be made publicly, and even if the information is false, if it is distributed privately to a specific few, it does not constitute defamation; this is called publicity.

The court explained, "At the time Mr. A made the statement in the office, only his friend was present, which is a strong circumstance to deny publicity," and added, "Considering the close relationship between Mr. A and his friend, a high degree of confidentiality can be expected." It further stated, "It is difficult to see that Mr. A's statement could have been disseminated to an unspecified or large number of people," and thus remanded the case.

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