Supreme Court sends back defamation case of lawmaker Kim Nam-kuk vs. ex-politician Jang Ye-chan

South Korea's Supreme Court has sent back a defamation lawsuit filed by lawmaker Kim Nam-kuk against former politician Jang Ye-chan for retrial. The case involves Jang's public statements accusing Kim of 'criminal' behavior and 'coin addiction' related to alleged virtual asset transactions.

“

Most people who encounter this dismiss it as political rhetoric and do not accept the claims as objective truth.

The Supreme Court's decision suggests that Jang's remarks, while harsh, might be protected as political speech. The court referenced a precedent stating that political assertions, particularly regarding the integrity and conduct of public officials, should not be readily classified as defamatory unless they are malicious or significantly unreasonable. The ruling implies that the public often perceives such statements as political attacks rather than literal truths.

Kim, a member of the Democratic Party, had sued Jang for 50 million won in damages, claiming defamation. Jang had made the accusations on social media and in interviews, alleging Kim engaged in illegal transactions using insider information about coin listings. Kim subsequently left and later rejoined the Democratic Party following an ethics investigation.

“

It is difficult to conclude that the defendant's writings and remarks were malicious or extremely reckless attacks, and thus there is room to acknowledge grounds for the illegality to be waived.

The lower courts had initially ruled in favor of Kim, with the first court awarding 30 million won and the appellate court reducing it to 10 million won, finding Jang's statements to be defamatory. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, citing that most recipients would dismiss Jang's claims as political rhetoric. The court also noted that Kim had not adequately explained the allegations, even after media reports, which may have amplified the suspicions.

“

The plaintiff, despite media reports on the allegations, did not provide sufficient explanation and remained inactive for a considerable period after leaving the Democratic Party, which could be seen as amplifying the suspicions.

The Supreme Court's ruling reinforces the principle that political speech criticizing public officials' conduct or integrity should be treated with leniency, provided it is not maliciously intended or grossly disproportionate. The court's decision also considered that Kim was cleared of criminal charges related to the allegations, further supporting the view that Jang's statements might not meet the threshold for defamation.

“

This ruling reaffirms the existing legal principle that the illegality of defamation cannot be easily recognized for political claims by political parties and for monitoring and criticism of the morality and integrity of public officials, unless the expression is deemed a malicious or extremely reckless attack that significantly loses reasonableness.