"What Kind of Management Is This..." Streamer Who Aired Grievances About Agency: Non-Indicted on Defamation Charges

Accused of spreading false facts by pointing out 'lack of communication' during a live broadcast
Prosecution: "Expression of subjective opinion... Hard to recognize causation with business damage"

A virtual streamer who was sued on charges of defamation and obstruction of business after airing grievances about her agency on an internet broadcast has received a decision of no charges from the prosecution.

The Pyeongtaek Branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office issued a no-charges decision for insufficient evidence on the 20th of last month for Ms. A, a woman in her 20s who had been referred on charges of defamation and obstruction of business.

Ms. A was accused of making statements pointing out management problems of her agency during a live streaming broadcast last May. The agency claimed that Ms. A spread false facts and damaged the company's reputation, and that as a result it suffered malicious comments and a decline in sales, obstructing its business.

Ms. A's side fully denied the charges. She rebutted that before the broadcast, official meetings with the agency had been suspended and communication had not been smooth, so she had merely expressed her frustration to viewers, and had no intent to disparage the company. She added that her remarks regarding another business were also nothing more than simply reading and reacting to viewers' chat content by asking back.

The prosecution accepted Ms. A's side's argument. The prosecution judged that Ms. A's remarks corresponded to value judgments or expressions of subjective opinion evaluating the complainant's company management, and were difficult to see as a statement of specific false facts intended to damage another's reputation.

In addition, the prosecution explained, "Most of the internet slander comments the agency submitted as evidence have a considerable time gap from the broadcast, and the content of those comments is mostly about contract termination rather than the content of Ms. A's remarks, so the evidence is insufficient to recognize a clear causal relationship between Ms. A's broadcast and the agency's damage."

Choi Han-sik, attorney of Daeryun LLC (law firm) representing Ms. A, explained, "For defamation to be established, a statement of objective fact, not a mere value judgment, must be proven," and "By analyzing the actual circumstance of communication breakdown at the time of the incident and the overall context of the broadcast, we demonstrated that the remarks were nothing more than an expression of opinion, and systematically explained based on objective materials that there was no causal relationship between the business damage claimed by the agency and the suspect's remarks, thereby drawing out a non-indictment decision." whyjay@sportsseoul.com

Reporter Shin Jae-yu

[Read the full article]
"What Kind of Management Is This..." Streamer Who Aired Grievances About Agency: Non-Indicted on Defamation Charges (Go to link)