Examining the 'Defamation of Han Dong-hoon' Yoo Si-min Verdict... What Is His 'Mistake' Revealed on Page 37?

Some Statements Also Judged Not Guilty

At 2:29 p.m. on the 9th, Yoo Si-min, former director of the Roh Moo-hyun Foundation, who was sentenced to a fine in the first trial for 'defamation of Justice Minister Han Dong-hoon,' is responding to reporters' questions.
Photo by Oh Gyu-min moh011@

[Asia Economy Reporter Oh Gyumin] Former Roh Moo-hyun Foundation Chairman Yoo Si-min, who was tried for defaming Justice Minister Han Dong-hoon, was sentenced to a fine of 5 million won. On the 9th, Judge Jeong Cheol-min of the Seoul Western District Court Criminal Division 7 (Presiding Judge) delivered a 37-page verdict assessing the guilt or innocence of the statements in question.

The prosecution raised three main statements as problematic. On September 24, 2019, Yoo, on the YouTube channel ‘Alileo,’ stated that he had confirmed that the account of the Roh Moo-hyun Foundation was inspected at a place presumed to be the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office. Later, on April 3, 2020, on MBC Radio’s ‘Kim Jong-bae’s Focus,’ he said, “I see it as something done by the Yoon Seok-yeol faction, and Han Dong-hoon, then head of the Anti-Corruption Department, was involved.” Based on these two statements, on July 24 of the same year, the prosecution indicted Yoo for defaming Minister Han, alleging that Yoo identified Minister Han as the party who accessed and obtained the Roh Moo-hyun Foundation’s account and claimed that “Minister Han abused his investigative authority with improper intent to target me.”

Yoo’s side rebutted these statements by arguing that ▲the prosecution distorted the overall context to indict ▲he expressed ‘speculation’ and ‘opinions’ rather than concrete facts ▲he did not believe the statements were false ▲the criticism was directed at the prosecution’s official duties, not personal defamation against Minister Han.

Yoo’s charge is ‘defamation by radio broadcast.’ This charge is separately stipulated under Article 309 of the Criminal Act, distinct from the commonly known defamation offense. Furthermore, to be found guilty, the statements must meet the general elements of defamation, have been made with the intent to defame Minister Han, and have been broadcast via radio.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

Judge Jeong examined whether each statement met the elements of the offense and found Yoo guilty regarding the July 2020 statement. He stated, “The statements included specific past facts in terms of time and place, and asserted that the investigation into the Roh Moo-hyun Foundation’s account was conducted as retaliation for criticism of former Minister Cho Kuk’s prosecution,” recognizing all statements as revealing concrete facts rather than speculation or opinion. In particular, the July 2020 statement was false, and Yoo made it with awareness of its falsity and with the intent to defame Minister Han.

However, regarding the April 2020 statement, Judge Jeong found Yoo not guilty, concluding that Yoo did not have awareness of its falsity. He said, “The explanations from the prosecution and the victim were insufficient, and it is difficult to conclude that Yoo recognized his statement as false,” adding, “The expressions in that statement do not appear to be malicious or reckless attacks on Minister Han personally, beyond oversight and criticism of a state agency.”

Following the first trial verdict, Yoo expressed his intention to appeal, saying, “Some statements were acquitted, some convicted. The prosecution is likely to appeal as well, and respecting the judgment’s intent, I plan to appeal to contest all acquittals.”

Meanwhile, Judge Jeong’s sentencing rationale, which considered “the victim (Minister Han) having been appointed as Minister of Justice and having somewhat restored his honor as a prosecutor,” is expected to spark controversy. A criminal law specialist attorney who requested anonymity said, “While a judge can consider this as a sentencing factor, it is not usually included,” and added, “There seems to be no correlation between this factor and the defamation of Minister Han’s honor.”

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