Cyber Defamation Lawyer | Building a Defense Around Public Disclosure and Intent

Cyber Defamation | What the Prosecution Actually Has to Prove

Cyber defamation is not established just because someone felt offended by what you wrote. The statute requires several distinct elements to be met, and a defense usually focuses on knocking out just one of them.

The Basic Structure of the Offense

Under Article 70 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization, a person who defames another by openly disclosing facts through an information and communications network with intent to disparage can face up to 3 years imprisonment or a fine of up to 30 million won, and this rises to up to 7 years or 50 million won if the disclosed content is false (정보통신망법 제70조 제1항, 제2항). This is a heavier penalty than ordinary offline defamation under the Criminal Code (형법 제307조), which is the policy reason prosecutors treat online cases seriously.

Why Each Element Is Contestable

Four things must all be present: public disclosure, specification of a particular person, a statement understood as fact (or false fact), and intent to disparage. In practice, screenshots of a private one-on-one chat, a comment visible to only a handful of members in a closed group, or a vague statement that doesn't clearly identify the complainant are the most common points where a case weakens.

Cyber Defamation | Was the Statement Actually Made Public?

'Public disclosure' means the statement was made under circumstances where an unspecified or large number of people could perceive it, and Korean courts have extended this even to some private conversations under certain conditions. This is usually the single most fought-over element in cyber defamation cases.

The 'Possibility of Spread' Doctrine

Korean courts have held that even a statement made to just one person can satisfy public disclosure if there was a real possibility that person would relay it further (대법원 판례상 '전파가능성' 이론). This means a message sent to a single close friend is not automatically safe, but it also means the prosecution must show a concrete basis for believing the statement was likely to spread, not just assume it.

Closed Groups, DMs, and Small Chatrooms

Whether a small KakaoTalk group, a workplace chat, or a members-only forum post counts as public disclosure depends heavily on the relationship between the members and whether the content was of a kind those members were likely to repeat elsewhere. Documenting the actual composition and closed nature of the group is often where the strongest factual defense can be built.

Cyber Defamation | Was There Really an Intent to Disparage?

Even where a statement was public and damaging, the offense requires intent to disparage — meaning the statement was made mainly to lower the person's reputation rather than to serve some other legitimate purpose. Courts weigh this against the public interest value of the statement.

Public Interest as a Counterweight

Courts examine whether the statement contributed to public interest, such as warning others about a business's conduct, reporting on a matter of legitimate social concern, or exposing wrongdoing, and weigh this against how personally hostile or gratuitous the language was. A consumer complaint or a critical review written in restrained language is treated very differently from insults dressed up as commentary.

What Evidence Actually Moves This Element

The full context matters more than any single sentence: the relationship between the parties, prior disputes, the tone and frequency of posts, and whether the statement was an isolated reaction or part of a sustained campaign. Preserving the full thread and the events that led up to the post, rather than just the flagged sentence, is essential for arguing this element.

Cyber Defamation | Does It Matter If What You Said Was True?

Under the Criminal Code's general defamation provision, stating a true fact solely for the public interest can be exempted from punishment, but the Information and Communications Network Act's aggravated offense does not carry the same clean exemption — which is exactly what makes online cases legally more complicated.

Truth Is Not an Automatic Shield Online

Article 310 of the Criminal Code allows a truth-plus-public-interest defense for ordinary defamation (형법 제310조), but prosecutors and courts have taken different positions on whether this defense extends to the Network Act offense, so simply proving the underlying facts were accurate does not guarantee an acquittal by itself. Whether Article 310 can be argued at all is itself a point that has to be raised early and supported with case law specific to the charge filed.

False Facts Aggravate, But the Burden Still Matters

If the statement is proven false, the penalty tier under the Network Act rises significantly, so a large part of the defense often focuses on documenting exactly what was known and reasonably believed at the time of posting, rather than what later turned out to be objectively true or false. Contemporaneous evidence — screenshots, receipts, prior correspondence — supporting a good-faith basis for the statement is more useful than after-the-fact justification.

Cyber Defamation | From Police Notice to Case Resolution

Cyber Defamation | How Fees Are Typically Structured

※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.

Cyber Defamation | Self-Check Before You Respond

Frequently Asked Questions

Official References

• Korea Law Information Center — https://www.law.go.kr
• Easy-to-Find Everyday Legal Information — https://easylaw.go.kr
• Korea Legal Aid Corporation — https://www.klac.or.kr