"Former Reporter Acquitted for Claiming '20s Supporting Oh Se-hoon Should Fail Interviews'... Reason?"

Oh Se-hoon, Mayor of Seoul

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A former journalist who posted on social networking services (SNS) during the campaign period of last year's Seoul mayoral by-election, stating that the young people who boarded the campaign vehicle of Oh Se-hoon, the People Power Party candidate (current Seoul mayor), should "definitely be rejected in job interviews," was acquitted.

According to the court on the 15th, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 27 (Presiding Judge Kim Ok-gon) acquitted former journalist A, who was indicted for violating the Public Official Election Act.

Earlier, on April 3 last year, A shared an article on his Facebook account, which had more than 10,000 followers, featuring photos of four speakers supporting candidate Oh, threatening them and interfering with the freedom of election, and was brought to trial on such charges.

At the time, A posted comments such as "What are you doing getting on the speculative forces' vehicle?", "Foolish people in their 20s. Remember their faces well, and when you go for job interviews, make sure to reject them. They are the kind of people who will ruin even sound companies."

One of the speakers responded with a comment saying, "I think telling people to reject us during interviews or job applications is a curse," but A replied again, "I hope you don't get hired." Subsequently, photos and personal information such as names of the speakers spread on SNS and internet communities along with media reports, and the next day A changed the post to private.

During the investigation, the speakers testified that "We thought A had influence in the media industry," and "We were worried about what might happen later. We regretted giving the speech."

The court ruled that "the speakers do not qualify as 'speakers' under the Public Official Election Act," and acquitted A. The court explained, "The provisions related to the Public Official Election Act stipulate that a speaker is someone 'designated' among those who can campaign for a candidate, etc.," and "It is reasonable to consider that their status ends once the speech at the public place is over."

Furthermore, "When the defendant posted the message, the speech event had already ended," and "The speakers had no plans for additional speeches or had refused further speeches due to personal schedules, so there is no ground to consider them as speakers at subsequent speech events."

The court also judged that A's actions did not constitute 'threats.' It stated, "There is no evidence that actual interviewers or HR personnel would be influenced by the defendant's intentions," and ruled that A's post was merely abstract and vague.

Additionally, the court added, "The speakers seemed to feel anxiety mainly because, after the defendant's post, related content was widely disseminated and known to an unspecified large number of people through many media outlets, SNS, and other internet boards, leading to criticism and ridicule or concerns about negative impacts on future employment or interviews," and "(The article shared by the defendant) did not contain personal information."

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