Constitutional Court Rules "Provision Allowing Third-Party Defamation Complaints" in the Information and Communications Network Act Constitutional

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the provision of the Information and Communications Network Act, which allowed third parties to file defamation charges, does not violate the Constitution.

On the 29th, the Constitutional Court announced a unanimous decision by all justices to uphold the constitutionality of Article 70, Paragraph 3 of the "Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Information and Communications Network Act)," which is classified as a quasi-official prosecution crime, in a constitutional review petition claiming that it violated the principle of proportionality. Article 70, Paragraph 3 of the Information and Communications Network Act prohibits prosecution against the will of the victim explicitly stated. This means that if the victim does not want the perpetrator to be punished, prosecution cannot proceed. This is known as a quasi-official prosecution crime. This provision also served as a basis for third parties, not just the victim, to file defamation charges under the Information and Communications Network Act.

The constitutional petition was filed by Mr. A, who was fined 700,000 won by the court after being reported by fans for defaming a celebrity. Mr. A argued that the provision, which allows prosecution unless the victim expresses a refusal to punish, violates the right to equality and is unconstitutional. He claimed that it should be a "complaint crime" like defamation against the deceased under the Criminal Act, where prosecution can only proceed if the victim files a complaint.

The Constitutional Court ruled, "It is difficult to see that the provision designating defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act as a quasi-official prosecution crime violates the principle of equality by losing balance in the penal system." The Court stated, "If the scope of complaint crimes is broadly set, there is a risk that victims may not file complaints due to fear of retaliation or social reputation damage. The legislature comprehensively weighed the interests of restricting the exercise of prosecution rights and accordingly differentiated between complaint crimes and quasi-official prosecution crimes."

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