Ex-professor who slandered Moon Jae-in's spy boss, fined

A view of the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. [사진=유대길 기자]

Ahead of the 19th presidential election, a fine has been confirmed for a former university professor who described former President Moon Jae-in, then the then-Democratic presidential candidate, as a “spy boss”.

The 2nd division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Lee Dong-won) announced on the 1st that it had confirmed the original judgment in which a fine of 5 million won and a fine of 2.5 million won, respectively, were sentenced to a former professor at Pusan National University, A, who was charged with violating the Public Official Election Act and defamation.

Person A was indicted on charges of remarking “a redhead” and “a spy boss” toward then-President Moon Jae-in at seven rallies since February 2017. He was also accused of publicizing false facts that “candidate Moon Jae-in led the impeachment of former President Park Geun-hye under a North Korean order” in order to defeat Moon.

The first trial sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 10 million won for violating the Public Official Election Act and a fine of 5 million won for defamation. The first trial court said, “The fairness and transparency of the election has been undermined by stating false facts about the candidate for the president of a specific political party.” The guilt is heavy,” he judged.

The second trial admitted the guilt of A, but commuted the sentence. According to the Public Official Election Act, if you want to be punished for publishing false facts, you have to tell specific facts, but it is difficult to say that ‘reds’ or ‘spies’ are factually accurate. The second trial court sentenced them to fines of 5 million won and 2.5 million won, respectively, saying, “Most of those who heard the defendant’s remarks were people with a similar political orientation to the defendant, so the impact on the election results or the evaluation of the victim did not seem to be significant.”

The Supreme Court also affirmed the lower court, noting that there was no wrongdoing, such as a misunderstanding of the law, in this judgment.