After staying at a pension, a guest who wrote a review stating "the owner is rude" received a 'not guilty' verdict in an appellate court.

On the 22nd, the Chuncheon District Court's Criminal Division 1 (Chief Judge Shim Hyun-geun) announced that it overturned the original ruling which imposed a fine of 500,000 won on a man in his 40s, A, for defamation, and declared him 'not guilty.'

A is accused of writing a defamatory review about the pension owner, B, on a mapping application due to dissatisfaction with his stay.

A had stayed at a pension located in the northern part of Gangwon Province for two days starting May 23, 2021. Although the cost of the pension exceeded 1 million won per night, A could not properly sleep from the first night due to deteriorated facilities and the 'odor' resonating inside the pension.

Consequently, on the 26th of the same month, A left a 24-line review detailing his unpleasant experience at the pension.

A wrote, "Would I come here if it weren't for COVID? The owner's attitude towards guests was the most upsetting. The owner is rude."

B, upon seeing this, filed a defamation complaint against A, and the first trial court stated, "The defendant disputes the intent to defame, the specification of the victim, and the defamatory expressions, but based on the evidence, it can be acknowledged that the defendant publicly defamed the victim," sentencing A to a fine of 500,000 won.

A, who immediately appealed the first trial verdict, emphasized that his review was merely a 'sharing of experience' and argued that it falls under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, which pertains to 'conduct not in violation of social norms,' thus claiming it was not illegal.

The appellate court noted, "Expecting a service commensurate with the lodging fees aligns with general standards," and added, "Even so, the defendant who did not receive good service must have felt dissatisfaction."

It continued, "Even if there were somewhat insulting expressions in the review process, considering the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the amount spent on lodging by the defendant, and the repetitive nature of the defamatory remarks, it is difficult to deem it excessively beyond what is socially permitted."

In particular, the court remarked, "The fact that 19 people liked the defendant’s post indicates that others who used the pension also somewhat empathized with the content," and thus pronounced A as 'not guilty' by overturning the original ruling.

Meanwhile, defamation, involving the dissemination of true or false facts that lower the social evaluation of a specific individual or group, is punishable under Article 307 of the Criminal Act.

Insulting someone or causing offense, even without stating specific facts, can also be punishable under Article 311 of the Criminal Act.

Image source: Reference photo to aid understanding of the article / gettyimagesbank