Lawyer rebukes mass complaints against Paik Jong-won stock forum commenters: “Even legitimate criticism could be punished”

[Financial News] Amid mass complaints filed by the side of Paik Jong-won, CEO of The BORN Korea Co., Ltd., over comments on stock discussion boards, a legal-sector analysis has highlighted the mechanical punishment practices of investigative authorities and the need to amend the statutory provisions on criminal insult.
On the 4th, Jeong Han-na, director of legal affairs at Daehan Jungang Law Firm, discussed the issue of mass complaints over Paik Jong-won stock forum posts on a YouTube channel, pointing to practical side effects in the investigation and punishment process.
Director Jeong said, “I agree that, as noted when the Constitutional Court of Korea upheld the constitutionality of the insult offense, insulting expressions online have had a greater impact.” However, she explained, “We should pay attention to the side effect that legitimate criticism, satire, and even rough new slang can become subject to punishment, as the three justices who dissented at the time pointed out.”
She went on to criticize the practice, saying, “Supreme Court of Korea precedents have clearly set the standard that an insult under the Criminal Act must be serious enough to debase the other person’s character. But at the front-line prosecutorial level, there is a widespread tendency to issue suspensions of prosecution or summary indictments mechanically, without adequately examining whether that standard is met.”
Director Jeong said, “A suspension of prosecution or a summary order may seem like a lenient disposition, but public officials can face disadvantages in personnel matters, and if the case later leads to a civil damages lawsuit, it becomes extremely difficult to defend against.” She added, “Correcting this requires filing a constitutional complaint or requesting a formal trial, which causes considerable hardship for those involved in terms of time and money.”
As an example, she cited a client who received a suspension of prosecution after commenting, “They scammed people so blatantly—what else?” on news of the return of a celebrity previously embroiled in an undisclosed advertising controversy. The client later obtained a decision overturning the disposition through a constitutional complaint, after the comment was recognized as “an abstract expression of a minor nature.”
Director Jeong advised, “Because a disposition becomes harder to reverse as criminal proceedings advance, people should actively establish from the initial police investigation that their words do not constitute an insult, based on the legal principles in court precedents.” She added, “Rather than abolishing the insult offense itself, the statutory elements should be revised more precisely to prevent its abuse.”
She also addressed the view raised by some that “the insult law is designed to benefit the legal profession,” adding, “Except for some law firms that specialize in handling coordinated mass complaints, these cases make up an extremely small share of most lawyers’ practices and provide them with no tangible benefit.”

[email protected] Han Seung-gon Reporter