Lawyers Lee Won-hwa and Lee Seong-ho warn that if MC Mong’s claims are found to be false, the “public interest” defense will not apply, potentially leading to a prison sentence.
In a rare move, a previous perpetrator who spread false information about actress Shim Eun-jin was sentenced to five months in prison.
Lee Won-hwa: Today on Case X-File, we are examining the legal issues behind the controversy surrounding MC Mong’s claims of illegal gambling in the entertainment industry. I am joined by lawyer Lee Seong-ho from Roel Law Firm. Welcome.
Lee Seong-ho: Hello, I am lawyer Lee Seong-ho.
Lee Won-hwa: Let’s start with the basics. MC Mong raised suspicions about an illegal gambling ring in the entertainment industry during a live broadcast, correct? Based on the reports, could you clarify the facts of how this controversy began?
Lee Seong-ho: According to reports, MC Mong explained during a live broadcast on the 18th that he himself did not participate in illegal gambling. However, he claimed that an illegal gambling group among celebrities does exist and specifically named Kim Min-jong as one of the members. Kim Min-jong’s legal representative stated that “groundless rumors about Kim Min-jong’s private life and malicious suspicions are spreading indiscriminately” and announced that they intend to hold the responsible parties civilly and criminally liable.
Lee Won-hwa: So, while defending himself, he essentially claimed the “real problem is elsewhere” by exposing someone else. He mentioned a specific person by name and raised criminal suspicions that might not even be true. What legal issues could arise from this?
Lee Seong-ho: First, defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act could be an issue. If someone defames another person via a live broadcast or SNS, Article 70 of the Act applies, meaning it could be defamation regardless of whether the statement is true or false. Additionally, the crime of insult under the Criminal Act could be a problem. If the broadcast included swear words, derogatory remarks, or expressions that lower the other person’s social standing, Article 311 of the Criminal Act may apply. Furthermore, such actions can be considered illegal acts under civil law, allowing the victim to file a lawsuit for damages to compensate for mental distress and economic loss.
Lee Won-hwa: Many people might think it’s okay as long as it’s true, but that doesn’t automatically justify it, right? What conditions are needed for an exposure to be legally justified, and how does this case fit those criteria?
Lee Seong-ho: Yes, even if the facts are true, one can be punished under Article 70, Paragraph 1 of the Information and Communications Network Act if the intent was to slander someone. However, Article 310 of the Criminal Act states that if the act is based on true facts and is solely for the public interest, it is not punishable. Courts generally apply this logic to the Information and Communications Network Act as well. Therefore, the person making the statement must be certain it is true and be able to explain that it was said for the public good.
Lee Won-hwa: In Kim Min-jong’s case, he was essentially targeted while minding his own business, and he immediately responded by announcing legal action. If it is ultimately confirmed that the claims are false, the problem becomes much bigger, doesn’t it?
Lee Seong-ho: Yes, if MC Mong’s claims about Kim Min-jong’s illegal gambling are proven false, the punishment will likely be more severe. While defamation of true facts carries a penalty of up to 3 years in prison or a 30 million won fine, defamation of false facts carries up to 7 years in prison, up to 10 years of suspension of qualifications, or a fine of up to 70 million won. This would also increase the amount of civil damages.
Lee Won-hwa: Moreover, in the case of false facts, the justification of “public interest” cannot be applied at all. Given this, is there a possibility that MC Mong could face actual prison time depending on the investigation?
Lee Seong-ho: Yes, the possibility of a prison sentence exists. MC Mong reportedly has a prior record of a suspended sentence for obstruction of official duties, though that period seems to have expired, so it may not aggravate the sentence. However, since he mentioned a specific name and accused them of a crime, the intent to slander is likely to be recognized. Whether the crime is established depends on whether he knew the information was false. In the past, a malicious commenter who continuously spread false rumors about actress Shim Eun-jin and other celebrities was exceptionally sentenced to 5 months in prison rather than a fine. While a fine or suspended sentence is possible, prison time is not out of the question.
Lee Won-hwa: Have you read the statement from Kim Min-jong’s lawyer? Usually, these statements have specific legal meanings, right?
Lee Seong-ho: Yes, they do. By explicitly stating that the suspicions are false, any further spreading of the rumors after the statement is more likely to be seen as having the intent to slander. It also increases the likelihood of establishing “willful negligence.” Furthermore, it serves as a right of reply and signals that there will be no compromise, showing the victim’s intent to seek severe punishment rather than a settlement.
Lee Won-hwa: What’s worrying is that MC Mong has teased further exposures. He reportedly claimed to have evidence and said he would expose more if he is sued. How does the law view these statements?
Lee Seong-ho: Since defamation can occur even if the statement is true, claiming to have evidence is essentially a confession of defamation of true facts. If it’s viewed as defamation of false facts and no evidence is produced, the nature of the crime becomes more serious. Claiming to have evidence does not prove a public interest purpose; rather, it can be an aggravating factor in sentencing. Additionally, declaring further exposures could add charges of intimidation.
Lee Won-hwa: On the other hand, he publicly claimed that an illegal gambling ring exists among celebrities. Could the police start an investigation based solely on these exposure-style remarks?
Lee Seong-ho: Yes, police can conduct a “cognizance investigation” even without a formal complaint. They would likely treat the media reports as intelligence and first conduct an internal inquiry to check the credibility and provability of the claims. MC Mong might be questioned as a witness. A similar case was the Burning Sun gate, where police began a cognizance investigation after internet exposures following a simple assault case.
Lee Won-hwa: While it might be difficult for the police to start a full investigation based solely on MC Mong’s one-sided claims, as you mentioned, if supporting evidence emerges or public opinion intensifies, an investigation is certainly possible. That concludes today’s Case X-File. Thank you everyone.
