[아이뉴스24 설재윤 기자] The Supreme Court ruled that if you make a video on YouTube by combining a toad with another person’s face, you can be punished as an insult under criminal law.
On March 8, 2023, toads are moving around Mangwolji Pond in Uksu-dong, Suseong-gu, Daegu, the largest toad spawning ground in the country. [사진=연합뉴스]
On the 21st, the 3rd Division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Sook-yeon Lee) confirmed the original decision that sentenced insurance YouTuber Lee, who was indicted on charges of defamation, obstruction of business, and insults to 1 year and 2 months in prison, in the appeal trial on the 31st of last month.
Mr. Lee, who hosts an insurance-related broadcast on YouTube, was indicted on charges of slandering each other on YouTube and insulting the victim, Mr. A, who was in a dispute by posting a video of a toad on his face.
In addition to Mr. A, Mr. Lee is also accused of repeatedly defaming several victims.
On the 21st, the 3rd Division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Sook-yeon Lee) confirmed the original decision that sentenced insurance YouTuber Lee, who was indicted on charges of defamation, obstruction of business, and insults to 1 year and 2 months in prison, in the appeal trial on the 31st of last month. The photo shows the entire view of the Supreme Court. [사진=연합뉴스]
Related articles
The first trial court found Mr. Lee guilty on most of the charges and sentenced him to 1 year and 6 months in prison and 3 years of probation.
The court declared him not guilty on that count, saying, “Just covering Mr. A’s face with a picture of a toad without any other insulting expressions is not enough to admit that he was insulting.”
However, the second trial court overturned the ruling and sentenced Mr. Lee to prison.
The court ruled, “It is reasonable to view the composite of a toad photo as an insult because it conveys an abstract judgment or derogatory emotion that can lower the social evaluation of the victim using non-verbal and visual means.”
He continued, “It would have been sufficient to use general methods such as mosaic processing,” and “the intention of the insult can be acknowledged.”
Mr. Lee appealed, but the Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal, finding that Mr. Lee’s actions amounted to contempt under criminal law.
The Supreme Court said, “Even if expressed only through non-verbal or visual means, if it conveys an abstract judgment or derogatory emotion that can lower a person’s social evaluation, an insult is established,” adding, “With the recent development of video editing and synthesis technology, composite photos, etc. “The possibility of committing insults using visual means is increasing, and there is no difference in the damage suffered by the victim or the degree of criminality of the crime when insults are made using only visual means compared to those using verbal means,” he explained.
/Reporter Seol Jae-yoon (jyseol@inews24.com)
**Considering the Supreme Court’s emphasis on “derogatory emotion” conveyed by the toad image, how can laws effectively distinguish between satirical or humorous intent and genuine malicious intent in the context of online memes?**
## World Today News Interview: Can a Toad Meme Be a Crime?
**Host:** Welcome to World Today News, where we unpack the day’s important stories and explore their wider implications. Today, we’re diving into a recent Supreme Court ruling in South Korea that has sparked widespread debate aboutFreedom of Speech, online harassment, and the evolving world of digital communication.
We’re joined by two distinguished guests today:
* **Dr. Eun-Ji Lee**, a renowned legal scholar specializing in cybercrime and digital ethics.
* **Mr. Jae-Hyun Park**, a prominent media analyst and commentator on online culture and the impact of technology.
**Section 1: The Case: A Toad, a YouTuber, and the Law**
**Host:** Dr. Lee, can you walk us through the basic details of the case that led to this Supreme Court decision?
**Dr. Lee:** Certainly. The case involves a YouTuber, Mr. Lee, who created videos criticizing individuals within the insurance industry. He used a composite image of a toad’s head placed onto the face of Mr. A, one of his antagonists. Mr. A pursued legal action, and Mr. Lee was ultimately convicted of insult under criminal law.
**Host:** Mr. Park, how did this case generate such widespread attention in South Korea and internationally?
**Mr. Park:** This case touched on several hot-button issues – online harassment, the openness of the internet, and the blurry line between satire and genuine offense. Many people wondered if simply using a meme-like image could be considered illegal.
**Section 2: Defining “Insult” in the Digital Age**
**Host:** Dr. Lee, the Supreme Court stated that the composite image of the toad conveyed “an abstract judgment or derogatory emotion” that lowered Mr. A’s social standing. How do we define insult in a digital space where visual communication is so powerful?
**Dr. Lee:** This is indeed a challenge. Traditional definitions of insult often rely on spoken or written words, but the internet allows for new forms of expression. We need to consider the context, the intention of the creator, and the perceived impact on the target.
**Host:** Mr. Park, could other types of visual content, like edited photos or memes, also fall under this legal interpretation of “insult?”
**Mr. Park:** Absolutely, I think this opens a Pandora’s box for online communication.
We need to be cautious about restricting creativity and freedom of expression, but we also need to protect individuals from online harassment and defamation.
**Section 3: Balancing Free Speech and Protection from Harm**
**Host:** This case raises important questions about the balance between freedom of speech and the right to be free from harm. Where do we draw the line?
**Dr. Lee:** This is a constant debate in a democratic society. We need to be mindful of the chilling effect that overly broad interpretations of “insult” can have on free speech.
At the same time, individuals should not be subjected to online abuse or humiliation simply because
they are accessible online.
**Host:** Mr. Park, what implications could this ruling have for online content creators, social media platforms, and users in general?
**Mr. Park:** This ruling sets a precedent that could lead to increased self-censorship among online creators. Platforms might be more inclined to remove content that even borderline insults, potentially stifling honest criticism and satire.
**Section 4: Looking Ahead: The Future of Digital Etiquette?
**Host:** As technology evolves and online communication becomes even more prevalent, how can we navigate these complex issues moving forward?
**Dr. Lee:** Fostering digital literacy and responsible online behavior is crucial.
We need to think critically about the content we consume and create, and be mindful of the potential impact of our words and images.
**Host:** Mr. Park, do you see a role for new legal frameworks or regulations to address these challenges?
**Mr. Park:** Legislation often lags behind technological advancements. We need ongoing dialog between lawmakers, technology experts, and civil society to find appropriate solutions that protect both free speech and the right to a safe online environment.
**Host:** Thank you both for your insightful perspectives on this complex and timely issue. This conversation clearly highlights the need for continuous discussion and reflection as we navigate the ever-evolving landscape of digital communication.
