'The Late Goo Hara violence Blackmail – Cinémix Par Chloé' The final example, flamer damages lawsuit loses "not illegal"

on
The 37th Civil Affairs Division (Chief Judge Jang Chan) of the Seoul Central District Court said on the 1st that the final example ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against nine people, including a netizen A, who made malicious comments on his personal posting.The court said, Even if the expression of comments such as Mr. A can be evaluated as socially undesirable or inappropriate, it is difficult to see it as an illegal act that undermines the social evaluation of the personality value of The final sample.The court said, Mr. A has written comments on the level of punishment or prevention of certain types of crimes by looking at articles posted online, or he has written comments to express his feelings. There are some words that can be seen as profanity or demeanor, but the level of expression is not high. .It is necessary to be careful to recognize illegal activities that public readers express their opinions on media reports dealing with social deviant activities such as crime on Internet portal bulletin boards, he said. We should not recognize the establishment of illegal activities just because it includes rude rhetoric and profanity.Earlier, The final example filed a lawsuit against the netizens who criticized him in March, and at the time, they were awarded some damages. At that time, the court ruled that one out of six commenters should pay 300,000 won to The final example, and the claim for the remaining five was rejected.

The 37th Civil Affairs Division (Chief Judge Jang Chan) of the Seoul Central District Court said on the 1st that The final example ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against nine people, including a netizen A, who made malicious comments on his personal posting.

The court said, "Even if the expression of comments such as Mr. A can be evaluated as socially undesirable or inappropriate, it is difficult to see it as an illegal act that undermines the social evaluation of the personality value of The final sample."

The court said, "Mr. A has written comments on the level of punishment or prevention of certain types of crimes by looking at articles posted online, or he has written comments to express his feelings." "There are some words that can be seen as profanity or demeanor, but the level of expression is not high." . "It is necessary to be careful to recognize illegal activities that public readers express their opinions on media reports dealing with social deviant activities such as crime on Internet portal bulletin boards," he said. "We should not recognize the establishment of illegal activities just because it includes rude rhetoric and profanity."

Earlier, The final example filed a lawsuit against the netizens who criticized him in March, and at the time, they were awarded some damages. At that time, the court ruled that one out of six commenters should pay 300,000 won to The final example, and the claim for the remaining five was rejected.