"'Are you Yongpal?' Charged with Defamation... Court Rules 'Freedom of Expression' Not Guilty"

Reversal of First Trial's 500,000 Won Fine Sentence

A man who was fined in the first trial for using the term 'Yongpal-i,' a derogatory expression for electronic device sellers, was acquitted in the appellate court.

Computer components. This photo is not directly related to the content of the article. [Image source=Pixabay]

According to the legal community on the 31st, the Ulsan District Court 1-2 Criminal Division (Presiding Judge Park Won-geun) overturned the original verdict and acquitted Mr. A (in his 20s), who was prosecuted for defamation.

Earlier, Mr. A, who lives in Ulsan, saw a post in February 2021 on an online shopping mall operated by Mr. B, an electronic device seller, offering a computer-related product C for 400,000 won.

Although the market price of product C was less than 200,000 won at the time, Mr. A thought that Mr. B was exploiting the shortage of the product to sell it at more than double the price.

In response, Mr. A posted a comment in the 'Q&A' section of the sales post saying, "This person is the epitome of Yongpal-i," but he was prosecuted for defamation due to the use of the word 'Yongpal-i.'

The first trial court sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 500,000 won, reasoning that he used a contemptuous expression toward Mr. B without explaining what was wrong with Mr. B's sales post.

Defamation is established when a person's social evaluation is lowered and abstract judgments or contemptuous emotional expressions are made. However, if partially insulting expressions are used in the process of expressing one's opinion or if the expression is not excessively malicious, it does not constitute a crime.

Mr. A appealed on the grounds that the word 'Yongpal-i' does not pose any ethical issues in society.

The appellate court also recognized that Mr. A intended to insult because he knew the exact meaning of the word 'Yongpal-i.' However, the court judged that the expression 'Yongpal-i' was a concise criticism of Mr. B's profiteering and that Mr. A did not insult Mr. B indiscriminately.

The court also considered that the selling price of the product at the time was significantly higher than the usual price and that other posts criticized Mr. B's behavior.

The appellate court explained the reason for the acquittal, stating, "Since the post was made only once and there were no swear words or slanderous content other than the word 'Yongpal-i,' the expression cannot be considered excessively malicious," and added, "The place where Mr. A posted is a space where consumers can freely express their opinions about sellers and products, so freedom of expression should be broadly guaranteed."

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