Constitutional Court Rules Against Prosecutor's Discretion in Celebrity Back Advertising Case
The Constitutional Court of South Korea has ruled that the prosecutor's decision to suspend charges against an individual for commenting "They blatantly scammed us" on a celebrity's controversial back advertising incident was unjust. On June 1, the court announced that it unanimously decided to cancel the prosecutor's suspension, stating it violated the rights to equality and the pursuit of happiness.
The individual, referred to as A, had commented on an article titled "Celebrity B to Resume YouTube After One Year of Back Advertising Controversy" posted on an online community in August 2021. Celebrity B faced backlash for failing to disclose paid advertisements on their YouTube channel, leading to accusations of back advertising.
A argued that since B publicly acknowledged the back advertising and apologized, the comment was factual and served the public interest. A claimed the comment was not an insult but a statement of fact, prompting them to seek a constitutional review to overturn the prosecutor's decision.
The court accepted A's argument, stating that the phrase "scammed us" was merely a mild expression of criticism regarding B's past indirect advertising and did not significantly harm B's personal dignity. The court noted that the expression was not excessively insulting or malicious and did not infringe on B's privacy, thus deeming it lawful.
A court official explained that even if a statement contains insulting expressions, if it is based on objective facts and is part of expressing an opinion, it can be permissible as long as it does not violate social norms.
