Cyber Defamation Lawyer
Cyber Defamation Lawyer | Building a Defense Around Public Disclosure and Intent
Cyber defamation refers to defaming another person through information and communications networks such as the internet, social media, or messaging apps, and it is punished more heavily than offline defamation (정보통신망 이용촉진 및 정보보호 등에 관한 법률 제70조). Even if you believe you only stated a personal opinion or shared true information, you can still be investigated once a complaint is filed, and the same conduct is frequently pursued as both a criminal case and a separate civil claim for damages. A defense generally turns on three questions: was there genuine 'public disclosure', did the statement actually damage social reputation, and can 'intent to disparage' be reasonably inferred from the context.
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 70 million won (50 million won for acts before July 7, 2026) 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
Before responding to a police summons, the actual post, comment, or message at issue is reviewed together with the surrounding context, including who could see it and what prompted it.
Most cases start with a police summons for questioning; preparing a written statement in advance that addresses public disclosure, identifiability, and intent helps keep the interview focused and consistent.
The case is forwarded to the prosecutor's office, which may issue a non-indictment, a summary indictment (fine), or a formal indictment for trial depending on the severity and prior record.
Because many complainants pursue this as a private-complaint-driven case in practice, reaching an agreement, a formal apology, or a withdrawal of complaint before charges are finalized can materially affect the outcome.
Separately from the criminal case, the same conduct can be the subject of a civil suit for damages under general tort law, and evidence and arguments developed for one track routinely affect the other.
Cyber Defamation | How Fees Are Typically Structured
Set based on the stage at which representation begins (police stage, prosecution stage, or trial stage) and the complexity of the evidence, such as the volume of chat logs or posts that need to be organized.
If applicable, tied to a specific defined outcome such as a non-indictment or discontinuance, agreed upon in advance rather than any general result.
Where a civil damages claim is filed in parallel or in response, fees are typically calculated separately based on the claimed amount, since the criminal defense and civil defense require different work.
Includes items such as document certification fees, expert opinion costs if digital forensic analysis of chat logs or posts is needed, and court filing fees where applicable.
※ 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
1️⃣ Checking the Public Disclosure Element
- Was the statement posted somewhere visible to an unspecified or large number of people?
- If it was a private message or small group, is there a real basis to argue the recipient was unlikely to spread it further?
- Do you have records showing exactly who could access the post or chat at the time it was made?
2️⃣ Checking Intent and Public Interest
- Was there a legitimate reason for making the statement, such as warning others or reporting misconduct?
- Was the language restrained and focused on facts, or did it include personal insults and hostile language?
- Is there a documented history of prior disputes with the complainant that provides context for the statement?
3️⃣ If a Civil Claim Has Also Been Filed
- Has the complainant specified a claimed amount and the basis for calculating damages?
- Are the criminal case and civil case being handled by the same or different counsel, and is the strategy for each consistent?
- Could an early settlement affect both the criminal and civil outcomes, or only one of them?
4️⃣ Before Attending a Police Interview
- Have you reviewed the exact wording of the post or message, rather than relying on memory?
- Have you organized the full context, including messages before and after the flagged statement?
- Have you decided in advance which elements of the offense you intend to dispute?
