Go Young-ju says "Moon Jae-in is a communist"... Supreme Court rules "Not defamation"

[Asia Economy Reporter Bae Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that describing President Moon Jae-in as a communist is an expression of political ideology or opinion on his actions and cannot be punished as defamation.

On the 16th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Ahn Cheolsang) overturned the lower court's ruling that sentenced former Broadcasting Culture Promotion Foundation Chairman Ko Young-joo to 10 months in prison with a 2-year probation in his appeal trial for defamation, and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court.

In January 2013, at a New Year's greeting event held by a conservative civic group, former Chairman Ko stated about President Moon, who was then the Democratic United Party's presidential candidate, "Moon Jae-in, the lawyer for the Burim case, is a communist, and if this person becomes president, it is only a matter of time before our country turns red." The Burim case involved more than 20 teachers and students who were indicted in 1981 for violating the National Security Act and other charges, receiving heavy sentences, but were acquitted in a retrial in 2014. At that time, former Chairman Ko was the investigating prosecutor, and President Moon was the retrial defense attorney.

The first trial acquitted former Chairman Ko. The court reasoned, "Considering the diversity of terminology, the fact that communism is generally associated with North Korea does not mean that the expression carries a negative factual implication."

The second trial convicted him. It stated, "In light of ideological conflicts, the term 'communist' lowers President Moon's social evaluation more than any other expression," and ruled, "Former Chairman Ko's remarks cannot be seen as lawfully made within the scope of freedom of expression," sentencing him to 10 months in prison with a 2-year probation.

However, the Supreme Court ruled, "It is difficult to see that the defendant's statement calling the victim a communist contains specific factual assertions that damage the victim's honor, nor does it appear to exceed the limits of freedom of expression." The court reasoned that political ideologies held by individuals or groups inevitably involve evaluative elements, making it practically impossible to prove by evidence, and thus judicial intervention in such matters is inappropriate. It emphasized that freedom of expression regarding public figures or public interests in the public sphere must be maximally protected.

A Supreme Court official explained, "The ruling reaffirmed the existing legal principle that the 'assertion of fact,' a requirement for defamation, must be provable by evidence and must be strictly distinguished from mere value judgments or evaluations."

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