Can You Be Charged with Defamation for Telling the Truth in Korea?

"I did not lie, I only told the truth" is the most frequent opening line in a defamation consultation in Korea, and it is not a defence by itself. Korean law punishes both the statement of false fact and the statement of true fact, and distinguishes between them only in the penalty. Whether the statement is true decides how heavy the offence is, not whether there is one.

1. Stating a fact is punishable

Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act punishes a person who damages another's reputation by stating a fact publicly with up to two years' imprisonment or confinement, or a fine up to 5 million won. Article 307(2) punishes the statement of a false fact more heavily: up to five years' imprisonment, disqualification for up to ten years, or a fine up to 10 million won.

Truth or falsity therefore does not decide whether an offence was committed. It decides how serious it is.

2. Posting it online makes it heavier

Where the same content is published online, the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilisation applies. Article 70 provides up to three years' imprisonment or a fine up to 30 million won for stating a fact through an information and communications network with intent to defame, and up to seven years' imprisonment, disqualification for up to ten years, or a fine up to 70 million won for stating a false fact.

An amendment effective 6 January 2026 raised the fine ceiling for the false-fact limb from 50 million to 70 million won, and introduced confiscation and collection of money or benefit obtained in connection with the offence. The provision is aimed at posts written for payment or as advertising.

3. The question is whether it could spread, not how many heard it

Defamation requires that the statement be made publicly — that is, in a state in which others can come to know of it. That is where most misunderstandings arise: people assume that telling one person cannot be defamation.

In a full-bench decision of 19 November 2020 (2020Do5813) the Supreme Court maintained its existing position that the requirement can be satisfied where a statement is made to a single person, if the circumstances were such that it could spread further. In that case the person told was a relative of the victim, and the Court held that the mere fact of the relationship did not exclude the possibility of further dissemination.

In practice, group chats, residents' groups and workplace team channels all raise the issue. Whether "it was only the two of us" changes the conclusion depends on the nature of the occasion and the relationship, and sometimes it does not change it at all.

4. When a true statement is not punished

Article 310 of the Criminal Act provides that an act under article 307(1) is not punishable where the statement was of a true fact and was made solely for the public interest. Two conditions attach: the content must be true, and the purpose must be the public interest.

Matters of private life are not automatically outside the public interest. The Supreme Court has held that even a fact concerning a person's private circumstances can be regarded as concerning the public interest where the main motive for stating it was the public interest (Supreme Court, 12 April 1996, 94Do3309).

The factors weighed together are these:

• Whether the purpose reads as the release of private feeling or as retaliation.
• The range of people told, the manner of expression, and whether there was any need to say it in that setting.
• The content and character of the fact stated.

Online posts work slightly differently. Article 70 of the Information and Communications Network Act requires intent to defame, so where a post is found to serve the public interest, the argument is directed at negating that intent.

5. A statement can escape liability even if it cannot be proved true

There is a further step in the case law. In its decision of 22 June 1993 (92Do3160) the Supreme Court held that article 310 is a provision reconciling protection of reputation with constitutionally protected freedom of expression. Accordingly, where the truth of the stated fact is not proved, there is still no unlawfulness if the person who made the statement believed it to be true and had substantial grounds for that belief. The Court confirmed the same principle on 14 December 2007 (2006Do2074).

This is where most cases are actually defended. It is common for the facts to turn out differently only after the dispute has begun, and at that point the defence rests not on "everything I said was accurate" but on "I had good reason to believe it". What you saw and relied on when you wrote — the documents you had received, how you came to hear it, what you did to check — becomes the evidence.

Where no check was made at all, or a conclusion was reached on one side's account alone, substantial grounds are unlikely to be found.

6. Where the victim does not wish to punish

Article 312(2) of the Criminal Act provides that defamation, and defamation by publication, may not be prosecuted against the clearly expressed wish of the victim. Article 70(3) of the Information and Communications Network Act is to the same effect. A clear statement that the victim does not wish to punish prevents the case from going to trial.

Insult works differently. Under article 312(1) a complaint is required, and a complaint may not be made more than six months after the offender became known (Criminal Procedure Act art. 230(1)).

7. The obstacle victims meet: nobody can be identified

Cases frequently stall because the author cannot be identified — a post on an anonymous board, a comment left under a username. Where the site will not release user information and no access record survives, the matter may end without anyone being named.

For a victim the order of steps therefore matters. Before the post disappears, capture the whole screen together with the address and the time, and only then work out how the author can be identified. Once the post is deleted, identification becomes much harder.

8. What is actually argued

• Whether the setting allowed the statement to spread — the relationship and the character of the place matter more than the number of listeners.
• Whether the content was true — the person asserting truth is the one who has to produce the basis for it.
• Whether the public interest was the main motive — the timing of the post, the wording used, and whether another route was available are all read together.
• Whether the person concerned can be identified — a statement can identify someone even without a name, if those around them would know.
• Where publication or an online network was used, whether there was intent to defame.

9. Before you delete the post

It is common to delete a post or a conversation once a complaint is known. The other side has usually saved it already, and the deletion itself reads badly later. Preserving the whole screen, with the surrounding context intact, is the better course.

In defamation the same words can lead to different conclusions depending on where, to whom and in what circumstances they were said. Contact Taeshin Law Firm for a confidential consultation in English, with the messages and the circumstances to hand.