Whether Emotional Social Media Posts Constitute Defamation, Insult, Stalking, or Obstruction of Business

Following the breakup, the client posted content about the former partner on social media. The former partner subsequently filed a criminal complaint alleging defamation, insult, stalking, and obstruction of business based on those posts.

Although the client viewed the posts as merely emotional expressions, each alleged offense involved different legal requirements, including identifiability, publicity, repeated conduct, the use of force or intimidation, and causation. It was therefore important to systematically organize and submit the relevant facts and context from the early stages of the investigation.

Accordingly, the client sought legal assistance from MegaX Law Office to develop an effective defense strategy.

MegaX Law Office approached this case on the understanding that criminal liability could not be established solely on the basis that the client had published social media posts. Instead, MegaX systematically analyzed the legal elements of each of the four alleged offenses and developed a defense strategy tailored to each charge.

First, regarding defamation under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, MegaX focused on the key legal elements of publicity (potential for dissemination), identifiability of the victim, and intent to defame. Through supporting evidence, MegaX demonstrated that the posts alone did not clearly identify the complainant, that their reach and potential for dissemination were limited, and that an intent to defame could not be conclusively established.

Regarding the insult allegation, MegaX emphasized that the expressions had to be evaluated within their overall context to determine whether they were sufficiently derogatory to undermine the complainant’s social reputation. Accordingly, MegaX organized the circumstances surrounding the creation of the posts and their broader context to ensure that the disputed expressions were not assessed in isolation.

Furthermore, because stalking requires consideration of repeated or continuous conduct and whether such conduct caused anxiety or fear, MegaX presented objective evidence demonstrating the lack of repetition.

As for the obstruction of business allegation, MegaX argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish specific acts of interference or a causal relationship between the alleged conduct and any disruption of business operations, particularly in light of the requirement to establish the use of force or intimidation.

As a result, MegaX successfully demonstrated that the legal elements required to establish each of the four alleged offenses had not been sufficiently met. The investigative authorities ultimately issued a decision not to refer the case to the prosecution, finding insufficient grounds for all four charges.