Summary

A South Korean court has ordered a YouTuber to pay ₩30 million (approx. USD 22,000) in damages for defaming Lee Geun, a former Navy officer and public figure.

The ruling highlights how online insults and false claims, even on YouTube, can lead to serious civil liability.


What Happened

Between April and September 2023, YouTuber A uploaded three videos attacking Lee Geun.

The videos included statements such as:

Calling Lee a “military freeloader” who took benefits and quit.

Claiming he was dismissed from a U.S. Navy special warfare school.

Using explicit and degrading language to insult him.


These statements were later shown to be false, including the claim about Lee’s military training. He had completed the course properly.


Criminal Case First

In June 2025, A was already punished in a criminal case.

The court issued a summary criminal order (a simplified procedure) imposing a ₩1 million fine for defamation.

A did not challenge the order, making the conviction final.


Civil Lawsuit for Damages

Following the criminal ruling, Lee Geun filed a civil lawsuit seeking ₩50 million in emotional distress damages.

YouTuber A countersued, claiming Lee had defamed him and demanding ₩55 million, but this counterclaim was dismissed.


Court’s Civil Ruling

The Suwon District Court (Civil Division) partially sided with Lee Geun.

The judge ruled:

The criminal conviction clearly established illegal conduct.

It was obvious under common sense that Lee suffered mental and reputational harm.


Final order:

₩30 million in damages payable to Lee Geun.

No compensation granted to the YouTuber.



Current Status

The ruling is not yet final.

Both sides still have time to file an appeal.


Why This Case Matters

Confirms that criminal defamation findings strongly support civil damage claims.

Sends a warning to content creators that:

YouTube is not a legal safe zone.

False statements and personal insults can carry heavy financial consequences.


Reinforces courts’ growing intolerance for reckless online attacks disguised as commentary.


In short: views may earn clicks, but defamation earns invoices.

Article: https://www.fnnews.com/news/202512240757525954#_enliple