Employee accused of defamation by saying “I had an abortion”… ‘Not guilty’ on appeal

Before seeing another employee
A colleague's past history is revealed
On request for prosecution summary order
Court refers to formal trial
“I am not aware of the possibility of transmission.”
Court upholds original judgment

An employee who was put on trial on charges of disclosing a co-worker's abortion without consent was found not guilty in the first trial and also in the appeals court.

On the 7th of last month, the Chuncheon District Court held an appellate trial for Ms. A, a woman in her 20s who was indicted on charges of defamation and found not guilty in the first trial, and found her not guilty, like the original trial.

In 2024, during an argument with fellow employee B, Mr. A was accused of defamation by saying in front of other employees that Mr. B had had an abortion in the past.

Mr. A acknowledged all of his actions, but argued that he was not guilty of defamation. This is because the employee who heard the remarks at the time maintained a close relationship with Mr. B, so there was no possibility of spreading the content to third parties.

The prosecution requested a summary order of a fine of 500,000 won for Mr. A. However, the court referred this to a formal trial, and he was found not guilty in the first trial. The first trial court explained, “The employee who heard the argument between the two people maintained a close relationship with the victim,” and “The defendant may not have been aware that his remarks could be spread to others through this employee.” He added, “Considering the fact that the employee in question did not spread the information to a third party, it is difficult to say that the defendant’s remarks were performance-based and intentional.”

The prosecution, dissatisfied with this, filed an appeal, but it was dismissed in the second trial. The appellate court also upheld the original ruling, saying, “It is difficult to conclude that the defendant was aware that the remarks would be spread through the employee.”

Attorney Gil Se-cheol of Daeryun Law Firm, who is representing Mr. A, said, “In defamation cases, in cases where performance is recognized due to the possibility of spread, it is necessary to have an unwritten intention to act despite knowing the risk of spread.” He added, “Mr. A did not recognize that his remarks could be spread to others because the employee who heard the argument and Mr. B are in a close relationship, so the unscrupulous intention was not established.”

Digital Content Team

[View full article]
Employee accused of defamation by saying “I had an abortion”… ‘Not guilty’ in the appeal trial (Shortcut)