Court Rules "Allegation Against Sangyong Park in Feces Incident Is False"...No Damages Liability for Lee Sungyun, Seo Youngyo

"Lee Sungyun's Remarks Were Made for the Public Interest"

The court has ruled that the claim alleging Deputy Chief Prosecutor Sangyong Park of the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office, who investigated the "Ssangbangwool Remittance to North Korea" case, was implicated in the "Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office feces incident" is false.

The court recognized the parliamentary immunity of Democratic Party lawmakers Lee Sungyun and Seo Youngyo, who raised the allegations, and determined that they have no liability for damages.

According to the legal community on May 11, the 25th Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Kwon Kiman) made this ruling in its written judgment regarding the damages lawsuit filed by Prosecutor Park against nine individuals, including the two lawmakers, former lawmaker Choi Kangwook, former spokesperson Kang Mijeong of the Innovation Party for Korea, and YouTuber Kang Seongbeom.

In June 2024, Assemblyman Lee alleged during a plenary session of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee that “about 30 prosecutors gathered at the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office in January 2019 and held a drinking party with special activity funds, and after the party, a prosecutor smeared feces on sinks and other places in the restroom.” Afterwards, Assemblywoman Seo claimed that Prosecutor Park was the person involved.

Former lawmaker Choi, former spokesperson Kang, and YouTuber Kang, among others, commented on a YouTube broadcast while looking at a photo of Prosecutor Park, making remarks such as, “Although Sangyong Park is now being accused of this, it was actually about remitting money abroad,” and “He looks fierce, those eyebrows...”

In response, Prosecutor Park filed a damages lawsuit against lawmakers Lee Sungyun and Seo Youngyo, as well as the YouTubers.

The court first recognized that the filth found at the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office was indeed feces.

Prosecutor Park's side argued that the substance was not feces but vomit, and thus the allegation itself was false. However, the court concluded, “The substance found must be regarded as feces.”

According to the judgment, a prosecutor who worked with Park at the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office testified in court that “around 9 p.m. on the day of the dinner, Prosecutor Park left the gathering place with colleagues and moved to another location.”

He further testified, “Around 11 p.m., after Prosecutor Park called a chauffeur service, I was dropped off first, and then I saw that Prosecutor Park headed toward his official residence, which is in the opposite direction from the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office.”

This prosecutor also stated that on the morning after the dinner, Prosecutor Park was the first to inform a colleague about rumors of the feces incident, saying, “There was a commotion on the 10th floor.”

He also sent a direct message to Assemblyman Lee on the day Lee made the statement at the committee, saying, “I was with Prosecutor Park until he went home that day, so I remember clearly, and he did not commit the alleged incident.”

Another colleague who attended the dinner with Prosecutor Park also testified in court in a similar vein.

Based on these facts, the court concluded, “The claim that Prosecutor Park was the person involved in the feces incident is recognized as false.”

However, the court did not acknowledge damages liability for lawmakers Lee Sungyun and Seo Youngyo. It determined that, considering they raised the allegations based on circumstantial evidence, their remarks were within the scope of parliamentary immunity.

The court explained, “Assemblyman Lee's remarks were made for the public interest,” and “He had sufficient reason to believe them to be true.”

The court added, “At the time, rumors about the incident were circulating at the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office, and Prosecutor Park was named as the subject. Even considering the manner and content of Assemblyman Lee’s remarks, it is difficult to see his statement at the committee as unlawful.”

Regarding Assemblywoman Seo, who revealed Prosecutor Park’s real name, the court also recognized immunity, stating, “She merely repeated Assemblyman Lee’s statement made at the committee.”

On the other hand, the court found former lawmaker Choi and others who made personal attacks against Prosecutor Park on YouTube liable for damages.

The court stated, “They displayed a photo of Prosecutor Park and made derogatory and mocking comments about his appearance and impression. This constitutes a malicious and reckless attack on his character, going beyond legitimate criticism or commentary on a public official’s performance of duties.”