단상斷想

The two incidents involving Yoo Si-min and Mostan are not merely expressions of political disagreement; they demonstrate repeated attempts to distort objective facts or fabricate non-existent facts to intentionally undermine the public reputation of specific individuals. One case involved the dissemination of a definitive false claim that 'the public was deceived,' going beyond an interpretation of the progress of prosecutorial reform. The other involved spreading the non-existent fact, both domestically and internationally, that the President committed a serious crime in his youth and was incarcerated in a juvenile detention center.

Both incidents share the commonality of being subject to investigation and trial on charges of defamation by false statement under the Information and Communications Network Act. However, a more crucial commonality is that our society has long been excessively lenient or indifferent to such political fabrications and slanders. As a result of virtually neglecting repeated slanders and incitements under the guise of freedom of expression, a vicious cycle has continued where the honor of public figures and the foundation of public discourse are simultaneously undermined.

Yoo Si-min's remarks began with an assessment of the content and pace of prosecutorial reform. He claimed that the reform was sluggish because President Lee Jae-myung did not want a complete separation of investigation and prosecution, characterizing this as 'deceiving the public until now.' Furthermore, he stated that the prosecutorial reform envisioned by President Lee was completely different from what was known as the Democratic Party of Korea's stance or the President's campaign promise.

When these remarks were made public through a Media Today YouTube broadcast, the Civic Action for Judicial Justice (사법정의바로세우기시민행동) filed a complaint, alleging that the repeated dissemination of false information, clearly contradicting objective facts, significantly damaged the President's social reputation. The Public Crime Investigation Unit of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency's Regional Investigation Division initiated an investigation by questioning the complainant. The core of this case is not a difference in policy evaluation, but rather the assertion that the cause of a specific policy failure was the President's personal intentional deception, and the dissemination of this assertion to the public. The specific details and implementation process of judicial reform are verifiable through publicly available bills, government positions, and parliamentary discussion records. Nevertheless, the choice to go beyond this and use the expression 'deceived the public' allows for criticism that it is closer to rhetorical slander aimed at political effect rather than a statement of fact.

However, on October 20, 2026, President Lee Jae-myung reportedly conveyed to his Cheong Wa Dae staff that he did not wish for punishment in connection with the defamation complaint filed against writer Yoo Si-min. A Cheong Wa Dae official stated that President Lee had communicated his intention not to seek punishment to the investigative authorities, and accordingly, Cheong Wa Dae plans to submit a statement of non-punishment to the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency. Under the Information and Communications Network Act, defamation by stating false facts is a crime that cannot be punished if the victim does not wish for punishment (반의사불벌죄). Therefore, if the President's wishes are officially conveyed, the police investigation is highly likely to be concluded. Although this is not a direct request for the complainant to withdraw the complaint, it is effectively a decision to halt the legal proceedings by the victim clearly stating that they do not wish for punishment. The President's direct expression of such an intention shortly after the civic group's complaint was initiated can be interpreted as not acknowledging the necessity of legal action regarding the remarks, or at least not wishing for it to lead to criminal punishment.

The case of former U.S. State Department Ambassador-at-Large for International Criminal Justice, Morton (Korean name Dan Hyun-myung), is more directly characterized as fabrication. He was indicted for allegedly spreading information that President Lee Jae-myung committed a violent crime as a teenager and was incarcerated in a juvenile detention center. At the first trial, he pleaded not guilty, stating, “I am innocent because I believe President Lee Jae-myung is guilty,” thereby completely denying the charges. The defense requested dismissal of the charges, arguing that Korean courts lack jurisdiction over statements made in the U.S., and regarding domestic statements, they claimed these were not assertions of fact but rather raised suspicions or questions, and that he had no awareness of them being false.

However, the starting point of this case is that the specific fact of incarceration in a juvenile detention center does not exist. There is no record of criminal activity during his youth confirmed through publicly available official data or related investigation and trial processes, and such claims have been repeatedly made in the past and proven to be untrue. The fact that he is a U.S. citizen and made statements abroad, and that there is a dispute over judicial jurisdiction, are matters to be dealt with in legal proceedings. Nevertheless, the act itself of fabricating and disseminating a non-existent criminal record goes beyond simple political criticism and directly attacks an individual's personal rights and public trust.

When these two cases are placed side by side, it reveals how slow and passive our society has been in responding to the dissemination of political falsehoods. Criticism and raising suspicions about public matters such as prosecutorial reform or the president's past are entirely permissible. However, when such criticism clearly deviates from verifiable facts, or even creates non-existent facts, the argument that it should be protected under the framework of 'freedom of expression' loses its persuasiveness.

Under the Information and Communications Network Act, defamation by stating false facts is distinguished from stating true facts for the public interest, and is subject to punishment if the intent to defame is recognized. Nevertheless, it often took a considerable amount of time for actual investigations, indictments, and trials, during which false information had already spread widely. Especially in cases involving political interests, there was a strong tendency to postpone fact-checking and immediate responses, saying, 'It's a matter for the court to decide later.' As a result, a structure was repeated where those who spread false claims gained political effect, and those who suffered damage had to endure a long legal battle to restore their honor.

This practice, rather than strengthening freedom of expression, actually degrades the quality of public discourse and amplifies political animosity. Defamation based on false facts fosters distrust in a person's character itself, instead of debating the content of their policies or public actions. This reduces the room for voters to make decisions based on facts and encourages politics that relies on emotional mobilization and incitement.

Especially in the case of the highest public officials, such as the president, the spread of false information can even shake the legitimacy of policy implementation. This is not to say that all criticism should be punished as defamation. However, holding accountable, through judicial procedures, acts of creating and disseminating facts that are clearly contrary to confirmed facts or do not exist, is to uphold the minimum norms of the public sphere. The Yoo Si-min case, where the police investigated the accuser, and the Moss Tan case, where jurisdiction and awareness of falsity are being disputed in the first trial, are examples of those judicial procedures beginning to function.

Up until now, our society has been overly complacent regarding political slander and fabricated falsehoods. The argument that freedom of expression should protect defamation and incitement through false information does not hold true, no matter how important freedom of expression is. To prevent such acts from recurring, it is necessary to clarify the facts through investigation and trial and to hold those responsible accountable. Social responses are needed to prevent false information from continuing to circulate even while legal procedures are underway, along with institutional mechanisms to prevent similar claims from being reproduced even after judicial decisions have been made.

As revealed in both cases, acts of distorting or fabricating facts for political purposes should no longer be dismissed as minor incidents. Protecting the reputation of public figures goes beyond a matter of individual rights; it is about safeguarding the foundation of a society where political debate based on facts is possible. Strict responses through judicial procedures can be the minimum starting point for restoring that foundation. However, as seen in the recent Yoo Si-min case, the fact that such procedures can be halted if the highest public official expresses a desire not to pursue punishment simultaneously reveals the limitations that can arise when responding to the spread of false information depends solely on individual choice.