“Wen was Communist” guilty, “Wen was Communist” innocent… Why

On the morning of the morning of the 31st, Pastor Jeon Kwang-hoon Sarangjeil Church is holding a press conference in front of Sarangjeil Church in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul for the first trial of violation of the Public Official Election Act and defamation of the President. [뉴스1]

“President Moon Jae-in attempted to communize the Republic of Korea” (Rev. Kwang-Hoon Jeon)
“Candidate Jae-in Moon is also a communist” (Ko Young-ju, former chairman of the Broadcasting Culture Promotion Association)

The two remarks, whose main keywords are’Moon Jae-in’ and’Communism’, seem similar at first glance, but they received the opposite legal judgment. On the 30th, the 34th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court (President Heo Seon-ah) pleaded acquittal to Pastor Jeon Kwang-hoon Sarangjeil Church, who was accused of making a remark meaning “President Moon Jae-in attempted to communize the Republic of Korea.”

On the other hand, last August, four months ago. In the same court and another court, the 9th Criminal Division (President Han-Don Choi) was sentenced to two years of probation in October in an appeal for defamation of former Chairman Go Young-ju. What made the two statements of guilt and innocence mixed?

In order to be admitted to defamation in a criminal trial, the remarks in question must be factual. The fact at this time is a concept that contradicts opinion expression, evaluation, and value judgment. Also, this fact may be false or may be true. When judging whether the precedent is true or not, it is necessary to consider whether it is possible to prove it with evidence, the context of the statement or the social situation. Former pastor judge Judgment that the former pastor’s remarks did not indicate the factsdid.

First, the former pastor’s judge mentioned that there are various meanings included in the concept of’communism’. The question was raised as to whether the expression’communism’ exists as a’definite concept of a single meaning’ as a political ideology in our society. At the same time, in the remarks ① and ② presented by Pastor Jeon as the basis for “communism”, he said that the conclusion that “the President attempted communism” was not drawn. In other words Pastor Jeon evaluated that he made a critical opinion on the president’s political actions and attitudes, based on his own grounds, not including facts that can be proved by evidence.All. In addition, the judge said, “The incumbent president and politician, public officials, should be more free to verify their political ideology in a free market of thought.I said.

Former Chairman of the Broadcasting Culture Promotion Committee, Ko Young-ju, who was accused of defaming President Moon Jae-in’s reputation for defaming the honor of President Moon Jae-in due to false information, is attending the second trial at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu.[연합뉴스]

On the other hand, the judge who heard the remarks of the former chairman It is decided that the remarks of the former chairman of the past are true and timely.did. The remarks of the late former chairman came at a time when President Moon Jae-in was a leading opposition party politician after defeating the 18th presidential election.

The former chairman’s court judged that “① remarks correspond to false facts contrary to evidence, and ② is a fact supported by the accused’s experience”. Former Chairman Ko, the core of his remarks,Objective facts were indicated as a method of proof to unfold the logic of’Moon Jae-in is a communist’Is an interpretation.

In addition, the judge judged that the remarks of the former chairman of the past were not merely exaggerated expressions, but made a leap of logic based on the false facts, and that the former chairman of the past also recognized this falsehood. Considering the overall context of the remarks, the expression’communist’ wrote in the ruling that “it is naturally understood as a radical communist who supports and follows the North Korean system or cautions and claims and tries to overthrow the liberal democratic system of the Republic of Korea by putting it into practice.”

In a divided country where the two Koreas confront, radical communist activists are subject to punishment, and they were pointed out as anti-social forces, so they could not come as good members of society. The remarks of the former chairman of the former chairman, who are influential politicians, are causing political and moral damage to the victims. The judge decided that the remarks of the former chairman of the past were “not included in the scope of protection of freedom of expression.”

This is not the only mixed judgment by the judges on the’communist’ remarks. The same remarks were found not guilty just by deciding the first trial of the former chairman of Koodid. At the time, Judge Kim Gyeong-jin of the Seoul Central District Court said,Which individual is a communist or not is inevitably an evaluation of his thoughts due to the nature of the concept. “The evaluation is inevitably relative and cannot be proved by evidence.” In addition, “As the Korean War generation thinks of’communism’ and the postwar generations think of’communism’ cannot be the same, considering the different careers and activities of the accused and Moon Jae-in, the expression’communist’ can be seen as a point of fact. “No.” It is a completely different decision from the appeal trial.

The former chairman’s side appeals and awaits the Supreme Court decision. In addition, the Supreme Court is looking into the defamation case that the former Gangnam-gu mayor Shin Yeon-hee disseminated the KakaoTalk message that he called “communist” against the presidential candidate Moon Jae-in.

The Supreme Court is also in the process of a civil suit filed by President Moon Jae-in over the remarks of the late chairman. In civil affairs, the first and second trials admitted the defamation of the’communist’ remarks and ruled that they compensate 30 million won and 10 million won respectively. A judge of the Central District Court said,Whether the victim is the incumbent president or not, and the context before and after the remarks in question, the impact on the judgment of guilt or innocence may vary.I said.

Reporter Lee Sujeong [email protected]