A court looked at tone and context, drawing the line on freedom of expression in the Kim Ou-joon ruling

[Financial News] "It was merely an 'expression of opinion' that briefly mentioned inappropriate reporting activities while commenting on the political and social situation at the time, and does not amount to a 'statement of fact.'"That was the defense Kim Ou-joon, 58, repeatedly presented during the trial after he was found guilty on the 14th and fined 20 million won for defaming former Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae by repeatedly spreading false claims. He argued that the remarks he made on his own program about a specific issue were not legally actionable 'statements of fact,' but rather the 'free expression of opinion' of a broadcaster.
However, the 14th Criminal Division of the Seoul Northern District Court, presided over by Judge Kang Kyung-mook, dismissed Kim's argument. What specific reasons led the court to determine that his remarks constituted factual assertions amounting to defamation?

According to legal sources on the 22nd, Kim was indicted for defaming Lee by making false remarks six times on radio and YouTube between April and October 2020, claiming that Lee had pressured or threatened former Value Invest Korea chief Lee Cheol to say, "Tell Yu Si-min that I gave him money."
In legal disputes, the standard for distinguishing a statement of fact from an expression of opinion is very strict. Under criminal law, defamation requires the disclosure of a specific fact that could lower social standing, regardless of whether it is true or false. By contrast, simple opinions, value judgments, and criticism fall within the constitutional protection of freedom of expression and are not punishable.
The court found that Kim's remarks went beyond a simple evaluation or a subjective expression of feeling. According to the ruling, the court said, "The defendant's remarks describe a specific act, namely that the victim actually had such a conversation and threatened him," and noted that this amounted to a statement about concrete facts that can be proven true or false with evidence. In other words, the allegation that he threatened someone was not a subjective interpretation, but a claim about an actual event that could be verified.
The court also noted that Kim usually spoke politely on air, but used informal speech only when referring to Lee's remarks. It added that this shift in tone likely led listeners to believe he was directly relaying Lee's words, rather than offering a mere interpretation or commentary. The way something is said, the court suggested, is itself an important factor in determining whether it is a statement of fact.
Legal observers say the ruling clearly defines the limits of freedom of expression. One legal source said, "It is a case that makes clear that when a broadcaster's remarks go beyond a simple claim and define a concrete act, they can be treated as a factual assertion for which legal responsibility must be borne."

Supreme Court precedents also focus not on the label or form of a statement, but on the ordinary meaning understood by the listener. In determining whether an expression is a fact or an opinion, courts consider the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, whether it can be proven, and the situation and context at the time it was made. Even if a statement takes the form of an opinion or evaluation, it can still create legal liability if its core content contains false and specific facts that could damage another person's reputation. Indirect or roundabout expressions can also be punishable if, in context, they imply facts and harm another person's social standing.
In this ruling as well, the court gave significant weight to the fact that Kim is a broadcaster with broad public influence and that his remarks were highly likely to be taken as actual facts by listeners. Kim's side argued that he was merely offering critical opinions in context, but the court concluded that, given the specificity of the remarks and their impact, they amounted to the false assertion of facts beyond the limits of freedom of expression.
Meanwhile, the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office filed an appeal with the court on the 20th, challenging Kim's first-trial verdict on charges including violations of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (defamation). The prosecution had previously sought a one-year prison sentence at the final hearing. Kim also filed an appeal on the 15th, one day after the ruling, citing unfair sentencing and other grounds. With both sides appealing, the case will be reviewed again by the appellate court.
[email protected] Seo Ji-yoon Reporter