Supreme Court Confirms Guilt of 'Bad Fathers' Operator and Informant for Disclosing Personal Information of Parents Who Fail to Pay Child Support

The operator of the 'Badfathers' site, which receives and discloses personal information of parents who do not pay child support after divorce, and a whistleblower who reported the non-payment of child support by their divorced spouse leading to the posting on Badfathers, were both found guilty.

On the 4th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) held a sentencing hearing for Gu Bon-chang (61), the operator of Badfathers, and whistleblower A, who were indicted for defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act. The court suspended Gu's sentence of a 1 million won fine and confirmed a 700,000 won fine for A, upholding the lower court's ruling.

Gu was indicted on charges of defamation for publicly disclosing photos and personal information of five individuals, including A's ex-spouse, who was reported as a parent not paying child support, on the Badfathers site between September and October 2018.

A was indicted alongside Gu for defaming their ex-spouse by reporting the non-payment of child support to Gu, which led to the information being posted on Badfathers.

Additionally, A posted on their Instagram, "Let's start some really fun things lololol #exciting #fun #joy #revenge #collection #childsupport #money #investment," and in a subsequent post used the insulting term 'michin-nyeon' (crazy woman), further defaming their ex-spouse.

In the first trial, conducted as a citizen participation trial, the court acquitted Gu. It also acquitted A of defamation for reporting the non-payment of child support to Badfathers. However, the court found A guilty of defamation for personally posting insulting expressions about their ex-spouse on Instagram, sentencing A to a 500,000 won fine.

This conclusion aligned with the unanimous verdict and sentencing recommendations of the seven jurors participating in the citizen trial.

At that time, all seven jurors unanimously found Gu not guilty of disclosing personal information of parents who did not pay child support on the Badfathers board, and A not guilty of reporting to Badfathers leading to the disclosure of their ex-spouse's personal information. However, they unanimously found A guilty of defamation for posting defamatory content about their ex-spouse on Instagram and recommended a 500,000 won fine.

The court did not accept Gu and A's claims that the prosecutor abused the right to prosecute or that their actions constituted 'justifiable conduct' as a legal excuse. However, since Gu did not receive compensation for disclosing personal information and child support payment is a public interest issue that society must address, the court found it difficult to recognize the 'purpose of defamation' necessary to establish defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act.

The court stated, "The defendants disclosed the personal details of parents who did not pay child support on the Badfathers site primarily to raise awareness of the suffering of many parents and children who do not receive child support and to urge payment. Since the main motive or purpose was for the public interest, even if there was a secondary personal motive to receive child support, it is difficult to consider that there was an intent to defame solely for that reason."

Furthermore, ▲ the increasing number of divorced families in society and the child support non-payment issue being a major concern not only for those directly affected but also for the state, society, and the general public, with various social measures being considered to resolve the issue ▲ the legal and social significance of child support issues and the unique nature of non-payment threatening children's right to survival, distinguishing it from simple monetary debt default ▲ the fact that victims themselves largely invited the risk of defamatory expressions by not paying child support after divorce ▲ the absence of any derogatory, insulting, or malicious expressions against victims despite publishing their names, addresses, and photos on the site ▲ and that Gu did not receive any benefits related to site operation or compensation for disclosing personal information?were all grounds for acquittal.

On the other hand, regarding A's Instagram posts, the court cited ▲ the use of many expressions that belittled or mocked the victim, indicating the main purpose of the posts was to negatively portray the victim's character ▲ the use of the term 'michin-nyeon' (crazy woman) as if the post was an amusing spectacle, which is difficult to justify as serving the general public's interest, concluding that the 'purpose of defamation' was established.

However, the second trial overturned the first trial's ruling, judging that Badfathers excessively disclosed victims' faces based solely on whistleblowers' reports without sufficient fact-checking, recognizing the defendants' indirect intent to defame and the 'purpose of defamation,' and found both Gu's site postings and A's whistleblowing acts guilty.

The court stated that while the results of the citizen participation trial should be respected, legal judgments based on undisputed facts, rather than evidence selection or fact-finding, may differ.

The court first stated, "The importance of child support claims and the permissibility of private individuals or organizations disclosing personal information should be considered separately."

It continued, "Given the seriousness of child support non-payment and efforts to resolve it, private individuals or organizations disclosing personal information of non-payers should be viewed differently in light of modern democracy and the rule of law. Generally, defamation through private sanctions without following legally permitted civil or criminal procedures should be approached with caution."

The court judged that the content of personal information disclosed on the site excessively infringed on the personality rights and honor of victims who are child support debtors.

In particular, the court found the disclosure of photos of parents not paying child support excessive, noting that even in cases of serious crimes or sex crimes, photos of convicted sex offenders are disclosed only very restrictively according to law, and that the newly established system for disclosing lists of child support non-payers under the 'Act on the Guarantee and Support of Child Support' excludes photos from disclosure.

Additionally, the court pointed out problems such as ▲ disclosing specific workplace names beyond vague occupational information of child support non-payers, which is not necessarily essential for public interest and may harm third-party businesses ▲ the arbitrary criteria for disclosure conditions, timing, and duration on the site, and the lack of prior verification or hearing procedures.

The court also noted that in A's ex-spouse's case, the payment obligation under the child support adjustment order had not yet matured, but the defendants overlooked this and posted the ex-spouse on the site's list of non-payers, which was later removed.

However, the court suspended Gu's sentence of a 1 million won fine. A suspended sentence means that when a defendant is sentenced to imprisonment of one year or less, detention, disqualification, or a fine, the sentence may be suspended if the defendant shows clear remorse, and if two years pass without further offenses, the case is considered dismissed.

The court explained the sentencing rationale, stating, "Gu did not gain any benefits related to site operation, and his actions contributed to raising social awareness about child support non-payment and establishing legal systems. Considering these circumstances and that he is a first-time offender with no prior criminal record, the sentence was suspended."

A's fine was increased to 700,000 won.

The Supreme Court also found no problem with the second trial court's judgment.

The court stated, "Regarding the defendants' posting of victims' personal information on the site either individually or in collusion, the lower court's recognition of the defendants' intent to defame and guilty verdict did not violate the rules of logic and experience, did not exceed the limits of free evaluation of evidence, did not misinterpret the legal principles concerning 'purpose of defamation' under the Information and Communications Network Act (defamation), and did not violate the principles of trial-centeredness and substantive direct examination, thus there is no error affecting the judgment," dismissing the appeal.

On the 4th, Gu Bon-chang, the operator of Bad Fathers, who received a final guilty verdict from the Supreme Court, is answering reporters' questions immediately after the sentencing.

Immediately after the sentencing, Gu met with reporters and said, "I did not defame or insult parents who did not pay child support; I only urged payment," adding, "I have not yet decided on the future direction of site operation."

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