'Hwang Hee-du, accused of "MB·Gwak Sang-do - Shincheonji collusion," acquitted in first trial'

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Lim Chun-han] Hwang Hee-do (29), a former professional gamer turned political YouTuber who was indicted for raising suspicions on his YouTube broadcast that former President Lee Myung-bak, People Power Party lawmaker Kwak Sang-do, and the United Future Party (the predecessor of the People Power Party) were connected to Shincheonji, was acquitted in the first trial.

On the 16th, the Criminal Division 11 of the Seoul Western District Court (Presiding Judge Moon Byung-chan) acquitted Hwang, who was tried on charges including violation of the Public Official Election Act, defamation, and obstruction of business, stating that "there is no proof of crime for all the charges."

Hwang raised suspicions on his YouTube channel in February last year, ahead of the 21st general election, suggesting that lawmaker Kwak was connected to Shincheonji, which led to a lawsuit filed by Kwak. He was also charged with editing a speech by former President Lee in August 2007 at the Grand National Party presidential candidate joint rally without permission and arbitrarily adding subtitles saying "enthusiastic Shincheonji followers," raising suspicions about the connection between former President Lee and Shincheonji.

In March last year, Hwang uploaded a YouTube video about the United Future Party, the predecessor of the People Power Party, stating that "there are reports that the Grand National Party was involved with Shincheonji, and the United Future Party, which inherited that lineage, is colluding with Shincheonji," which led to a complaint from the United Future Party.

The court ruled on the videos raising suspicions of connections between lawmaker Kwak, former President Lee, the United Future Party, and Shincheonji, stating, "It is difficult to see that the video content specifies concrete facts beyond raising suspicions," and "It is hard to view the motive and purpose of the videos as intended for defamation." The court also considered that the videos cited articles or broadcast sources as evidence, allowing viewers to directly look up the articles.

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