I posted a warning about my hagwon in an expat group and now the director has filed a defamation complaint — everything I wrote was true. Can I really be charged?

Your instincts are right about American law and wrong about Korean law, and the gap between them is exactly where you are standing. In Korea, stating true facts that damage someone's reputation can be a crime; truth is not a complete defense but an element of a separate, narrower defense that turns on whether you acted in the public interest. Your post — a warning to other teachers about wage and pension violations — is close to the paradigm case for that defense, which is why this is a case to fight rather than to fear. The "network act" charge is the online version of the same offense with a higher penalty. Do not delete the post yet; ask first.

What this is under Korean law

Defamation (명예훼손, myeongye hweson) under Article 307 of the Criminal Act criminalizes publicly alleging facts that damage a person's reputation — true facts under paragraph 1, false facts under paragraph 2 with a heavier penalty. Because the post was made online, the charge is under Article 70 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization (정보통신망법, jeongbo tongsinmang-beop), which adds the element of purpose to defame and raises the penalty: up to three years' imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 30 million for true facts, up to seven years for false ones.

The defense is Article 310 of the Criminal Act: a true statement made solely for the public interest is not punishable. Korean courts apply "public interest" with reasonable breadth — a statement about an employer's compliance with labor law, made to the community of people who might work there, has been held to qualify. What undercuts the defense is content that goes beyond the facts — "the worst hagwon in Seoul," speculation about the director's motives, emotional characterization — because those elements are read as personal attack, not public warning.

Insult (모욕, moyok) under Article 311 is different: it covers abstract contemptuous expression — name-calling, derision — that lowers a person's social standing without alleging any fact. Shouting at teachers is a fact; "the director is a petty tyrant" is an insult. Whether your post contains anything of the second kind is the question your lawyer will ask first.

Both offenses require the victim's will: defamation cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express wish, and insult requires the victim's complaint. That makes a settlement (합의, hapui) — or simply the director's withdrawal — decisive. It also means the director's leverage is real.

How the process works in Korea

The police will interview you, examine the post, and assess the Article 310 defense. They refer the case to the prosecutor (송치, songchi) or close it (불송치, bulsongchi). Prosecutors frequently decline to indict factual employment complaints made in good faith; they also frequently indict posts where a true core is wrapped in contempt. Fines are the usual outcome where a case proceeds.

Your situation as a foreign national

A criminal complaint does not affect your E-2 status; a conviction or fine is a fact the Immigration Office may consider, and a defamation fine is at the mild end of what it weighs. Immigration outcomes are decided by the Immigration Office, not the court, and we do not predict them. Your employer's cooperation in your renewal is, as you say, no longer available; that is an employment problem to solve separately, and the labor violations you documented are grounds for a labor office complaint of your own — which also happens to be evidence for the public-interest defense. MEGA X handles the criminal case; where the status question arises, we coordinate with an immigration specialist as part of your defense.

On deletion: the post is evidence of what you said; deleting it does not undo the offense and may look like consciousness of guilt. Preserve it, with the comments, exactly as posted. Whether to take it down now is a tactical question — sometimes a condition of settlement — to decide with counsel, not on instinct.

What to do now, and what not to do

Do not post anything further, and do not respond to the director. Do assemble the payslips, the pension records, and any messages about salary delays — the truth of each statement in the post has to be documented, line by line. Do not attend the interview without counsel; the difference between a public-interest defense and an admission of "purpose to defame" is made in how the interview is answered. Consider filing the labor complaint now; it changes the director's posture on his complaint.

From a former police investigator's perspective

Investigators handling online defamation complaints from employers know most of them are retaliation for a labor dispute. What they are checking is whether the post stated facts or vented, and whether the facts are supported. A teacher who arrives with payslips proving every sentence, and whose post reads as a warning rather than a rant, presents a file that closes under Article 310. A teacher who says "everything I wrote is true" and cannot show it, or whose post called the director names, presents a file that gets referred. Read your own post again, coldly, sentence by sentence, before anyone else does.

Send us the post and the payslips and we can tell you which sentences are defended and which are the problem — by text consultation or at +82-2-522-3959.

— MEGA X Law Firm Korea, Criminal Defense Team