On the 3rd, the prosecution indicted Ryu Si-min, the chairman of the Roh Moo-hyun group, without custody.
The crime the prosecution applied was "defamation by radio."
Prosecutors claim that on July 24 last year, Chairman Yoo Si-min, who appeared on MBC Radio's [Focus on Eyes], made false remarks and defamed Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon's reputation.
Chairman Yoo Si-min said in this broadcast, "I think it was around the end of November (2019) and early December. At that time, the Anti-Corruption Power Department, where Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon was located at the time, judged that it was highly likely that he had seen the (Labor Current Group account)." B. The Supreme Swordsman's Anti-Corruption Power Department has never traced the accounts of the Roh Moo Hyun Group, so this is a false remark that defamed Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon's reputation.
"Prosecution of Yoo Citizen is unjust"...
What is the logic of defamation denial?
Chairman Yoo Si-min, the party to the case, has yet to disclose any position on the prosecution's prosecution. However, some of the ruling party lawmakers who were former lawyers criticized the prosecution for indicting Chairman Yoo. The representative figure is Democratic Party Rep. Kim Yong-min. In an article posted on Facebook on the 5th, Rep. Kim argued that "the prosecution's prosecution against the chairman of the Roh Moo-Hyundan Chairman Yoo Si-min is an abuse of the prosecution's power." Rep. Kim presented two main reasons, saying that the prosecution against Chairman Yoo was unfair.
First, even if Chairman Ryu Si-min's remarks were false, Chairman Yoo had considerable grounds to believe that the suspicion was true at the time of the remarks, so there is no legally guilty of defamation. Chairman Yoo Si-min raised suspicion, "It is highly likely that the Ministry of Anti-Corruption Power, where Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon was located, saw (the labor current group account)." Congressman Kim argued that it was presented as evidence. Taking measures to prevent financial institutions from promptly notifying account holders that they have provided transaction details to state institutions (= suspension of notification of providing facts of transaction information) "corresponds to the reason that the investigative agency's account access is sufficiently suspicious." Congressman Kim insisted.
Second, it is that the prosecution is not an individual Han Dong-hoon who criticized for his remarks, but because the prosecution is a public institution, there is no defamation in legal terms.
Although Chairman Yoo mentioned the name'Han Dong-hoon', this means that it came from the process of referring to the prosecution to which Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon belongs, so it does not damage the reputation of ordinary citizen Han Dong-hun.
"In light of the fact that the government and state agencies should always be the subject of public scrutiny and criticism regarding the performance of their duties and cannot be victims of defamation, the prosecution's prosecution is highly likely to be an abuse of the prosecution's power." Congressman insisted.
If innocent in court in the future, Chairman Yoo is expected to reveal a position similar to the logic suggested by Rep. Kim Yong-min in the court.
In a situation where the remarks of Chairman Ryu Si-min are clearly recorded, and that Chairman Ryu Si-min himself said, "we judge that it was not true," he denied the fact that'Chairman Yoo Si-min made a false remark.' Because it seems very difficult to do.
In order for Chairman Yoo's side to claim innocence, it has no choice but to take the position that, like Congressman Kim Yong-min,'he made false remarks, but defamation is not legally established.'
Core issue-Was it Han Dong-hoon or the prosecution?
Then, what are the necessary conditions for the claim that'I made a false statement, but it is not defamatory'? In the case of this case, the conclusion depends on whether the target of the criticism of Chairman Yoo Si-min is Han Dong-hoon or the prosecution. As Congressman Kim Yong-min argued, if the object of the prosecution, not Han Dong-hoon, the object of which Chairman Yoo Si-min criticizes through his remarks is the prosecution, there is a high possibility that defamation charges will not be established. This is because it is the attitude of precedent that defamation toward state institutions is not recognized. However, if the subject of the criticism of Chairman Yoo Si-min is the personal prosecutor Han Dong-hoon, it is difficult to avoid the punishment for defamation if it is proved that he made false information on terrestrial radio broadcasts. Even if Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon is a high-ranking public official, if he publicly makes false statements without any reason to believe that he has traced the account, it is a crime of defamation. In fact, a recent court sentenced a reporter who made false statements on YouTube that former Minister Cho Kook met with the deputy judge who was in charge of the trial of former President Park Geun-hye when he was the senior civil servant, and sentenced the reporter to be convicted of defamation in the second trial following the first trial.
In particular, in the case of this case, whether there was considerable ground to believe that it was true can also be judged differently depending on whether the object of defamation was Han Dong-hoon or the prosecution. Rep. Kim Yong-min and others argued that Chairman Yoo suggested a “deferral measure of the provision of transaction information facts” as a basis for remarks, and that this could be a reason to be suspicious of “accessing accounts of investigative agencies” such as the police or prosecutors. However, although this may be a reason to suspect that the "investigation agency" has looked into the account, it is difficult to be a reason to believe that Han Dong-hoon or a specific department led by Han Dong-hoon traced the account. This is because there is a good possibility that the investigative agency that viewed the account was not the anti-corruption force department of the great prosecution, but the police or other prosecution offices. Therefore, if the subject of defamation is confirmed as Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon, it is difficult to be considered as a basis for believing that the suspicion is true in the situation at that time. It is difficult to avoid legal responsibility.
However, there is a document that must be checked in order to determine whether the central issue of this case, that is, whether the object of which Shimin Yoo's reputation was defamed through remarks was Han Dong-hoon or the prosecution.
This is an apology released by Chairman Ryu Si-min on January 22, 2021.
Chairman Ryu Si-min said in an apology, "Everyone has the right to raise a suspicion, but if you exercise that right, you must be responsible for proving it. However, I have not been able to prove the suspicion raised. I believe that the suspicion was not true." .
"I can't share my responsibilities with anyone, and I can't make any excuses. I'm very embarrassed. Once again, I deeply apologize."
At the time, several media outlets reported that'Chairman Yoo Si-min apologized to Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon.'
If the subject of the apology by President Si-min Yoo was the subject of prosecutor Han Dong-hoon, the object of the criticism of Chairman Yoo Si-min could be interpreted as the prosecutor Han Dong-hoon, and therefore, it would be interpreted to the effect that in effect, the chairman Yoo Si-min admitted to defamation of the prosecutor Han Dong-hun. I can.
There was also a sentence saying, "I don't think it would be enough just to apologize, and I will humbly accept any form of blame."
(At the time of the announcement of the apology, Chairman Yoo Si-min was accused of defamation and was under investigation by the prosecution.)
Did Yoo Si-min apologize to Han Dong-hoon?
However, if you carefully examine the full text of the "Apology Statement" announced by Chairman Yoo Si-min, it is questionable whether it can be viewed as an apology to Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon. The name "Han Dong-hoon" never appears in this apology. “I politely apologize to all the prosecutors' officials for causing suspicion that the prosecution would have inspected me by raising suspicion that is not true,” he said and only referred to “all of the prosecutors' officials” as objects of apology. This can be interpreted as an expression in line with the legal argument that the crime of defamation does not exist because it was a criticism of the prosecution group, not Han Dong-hoon individual. If the name "Han Dong-hoon" was specified in the apology, it would have been difficult not to admit that the object of defamation was Han Dong-hoon, but because he apologized only to "all the prosecutors", it can be argued that he was criticizing the group called the prosecution, not Han Dong-hoon There was room for it.
Another significant thing is that the remarks cited by Chairman Yoo Si-min as the object of an apology in "Apology Moon" are not'remarks on MBC Radio [Attention Focus] on July 24, 2020,' but'December 24, 2019 YouTube broadcast [Alileo ] It was an appearance broadcast'. Chairman Yoo apologized only for remarks in [Alileo], without mentioning MBC's [focus on attention]. However, the prosecution indicted Chairman Yoo Si-min and judged that only MBC [focus on attention] remarks constituted a defamation charge, and that [Alileo] remarks did not constitute defamation charges. In the end, Chairman Yoo Si-min only apologized for remarks that the prosecution did not hold legal responsibility for and promised "I will accept any blame." However, he did not apologize or promise to accept legal responsibility for remarks that were indicted.
(Since the prosecution stated that the prosecution's possibility to trace the account of the prosecution's labor group without directly mentioning Han Dong-hun on YouTube broadcast [Alileo], the prosecution said it was not subject to defamation, according to the law that state agencies could not be subject to defamation. However, on July 24, 2020, on MBC Radio [Glance Focus], not only did Chairman Ryu Si-min directly mention the name of Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon, and the broadcast itself was on the morning of the Prosecutor's Investigation Review Committee against Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon. It is known that the prosecution has determined that the prosecution has clarified that he is speaking specifically with Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon, such as saying, "I think this is the Prosecution Deliberation Committee," on the broadcast. The prosecution's position is that the prosecution was charged by applying the'crime of defamation by radio'.)
What is the real meaning of Yoo Si-min's "apple moon"?
It is difficult to interpret the "Apology Statement" by Chairman Yoo Si-min as an acknowledgment of the defamation of Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon. It is hard to say that this is an apology for the prosecution's remarks on applying defamation charges. Chairman Ryu Si-min said in the "Apology Statement", "I will accept any blame." It doesn't seem to mean accepting legal responsibility for allegations of defamation.
Whether Chairman Ryu Si-min will be convicted of defamation or the prosecution's abuse of the prosecution's power will be ruled out in court in the future. While there seems to be little contention over the facts, as Chairman Ryu Si-min said in an apology, he is interested in whether he will admit guilty by saying, "I humbly accept any blame for any responsibility," or whether he will argue innocence while advocating a similar law to the claims of Rep. Will be the focus. If Chairman Ryu Si-min's side pleads innocence, the question will be raised immediately,'If so, didn't Yoo Si-min apologize to Han Dong-hoon?' Looking at the answer to this question, you can guess the reason why Chairman Yoo did not mention "Dong-Hoon Han" when he released his "Apology Statement" in January, and the real reason why he apologized only for remarks on YouTube broadcast [Alileo], not MBC radio remark Will be able to.
[Note] Roh (22 January 2021) Apology professional of Rhyu Si-min Chairman published on the Foundation website
use and doors
December 24, 2019, I Youtube Broadcast inform Leo 'in the prosecution November 2019 horse or December Suspicion has been raised that financial transaction information in the Foundation's account may have been viewed at some point in the beginning. Everyone has the right to raise a suspicion, but if you exercise that right, you are responsible for proving it. However, I have not been able to substantiate the allegations I raised. I believe that the suspicion was not true.
First of all, I politely apologize to all officials of the prosecution for raising suspicion that the prosecution may have inspected me by raising suspicion that is not true. I don't think it's enough to apologize, and I will humbly accept any form of blame.
We apologize to the sponsoring members of the Roh Moo Hyun Foundation. I brought the Roh Moo Hyun Group into the whirlwind of political confrontation by raising suspicions that I could not prove. It was a violation of the chairman's duty to make efforts for President Roh Moo-hyun to enter the hearts of the people as a broad leader like an ocean embraced by all rivers. We ask for your forgiveness from sponsoring members.
I bow my head and apologize to the citizens who have encountered the suspicion I raised through the broadcast and media coverage of'Alileo'. The evaluation of the prosecution reform policy promoted by the ruling party and the prosecution's actions in relation to it will vary from person to person. But all of us must form an opinion based on facts in any case. Raising suspicions without the support of clear facts distorts the process of forming public opinion. I have reviewed all the words and actions I have ever said and done in this regard. I acted as a party to political quarrels outside the limits of criticism. He'demonized' the opposing opponent and completely distrusted the words of public officials, prosecutors. I got caught up in excessive emotional hostility and fell into a logical confirmation bias. I couldn't keep a critical distance from my own thoughts and feelings. Fragmentary information and opaque situations were interpreted in only one direction, raising suspicions of not having a sufficient basis of facts without carefully examining the possibility of verification. I think it was an act that broke the basics as a person who made his job dealing with words and writing. You can't share your responsibilities with anyone, and you can't make any excuses. I am very embarrassed. I deeply apologize again.
I will accept all criticisms for my faults. I quit political criticism in April of last year. I will not continue to criticize political issues in the future.
Jan. 22, 2021