The ruling that the operator of the YouTube channel ‘Sojang’ (탈덕수용소) must pay 170 million won to SM Entertainment clearly demonstrates this trend. The court’s judgment on clear acts of defamation, going beyond mere criticism, will serve as an important precedent to curb indiscriminate online activities.

Celebrity Slander on YouTube, Finally Pays a Heavy Price

The operator of the YouTube channel ‘Sojang,’ which had been spreading malicious rumors and false information about celebrities, including famous idol groups, has finally faced legal judgment. On April 22, the Seoul District Court ruled that Mr. A, the operator of ‘Sojang,’ infringed upon the personal rights of artists belonging to SM Entertainment, such as aespa, EXO, and Red Velvet, ordering a total of 130 million won in damages. An additional 40 million won for damages related to the decline in SM Entertainment’s image and brand value was added, bringing the total compensation to 170 million won.

• Mr. A produced and posted videos containing false information and personal attacks, severely infringing upon the artists’ reputation and personal rights.
• The court viewed Mr. A’s actions as going beyond the scope of simple expression of opinion.
• SM Entertainment plans to continue strong legal action to protect its artists.

This ruling is a symbolic event that shows that online slander relying on anonymity is no longer tolerated. It clearly imprinted the fact that irresponsible malicious posts and the spread of rumors ultimately lead to immense personal economic and legal responsibility.

Online Defamation, The Blade of the Law is Not Dull

The seriousness of online defamation is not limited to the entertainment industry. The recent case where broadcaster Park Ji-yoon sued her ex-husband Choi Dong-seok for spreading malicious online posts and rumors clearly shows how quickly privacy-related defamation can spread and cause significant repercussions. Reports emerged that Choi Dong-seok’s identity was identified during Park Ji-yoon’s legal action against online malicious post distributors last year, and a police investigation is currently underway.

• If personal privacy-related information is indiscriminately spread online, the damage can become uncontrollably large.
• Defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act is established when a person damages another’s reputation by stating false or true facts with the purpose of slandering them, regardless of whether the facts are true.
• Even criticism made under the pretext of ‘public interest’ can constitute defamation depending on its level and content, so caution is required.

The court’s judgment is clear. Even if a post is written online, if its content defames another person, legal responsibility cannot be avoided. We must remember that a single word carelessly thrown while hiding behind anonymity can lead to serious legal disputes.

A Carelessly Thrown Stone, Shakes Even the Stock Market

Stock investment cafes and discussion forums are also not free from defamation. As companies announced strong legal action against malicious rumors and fake news in 2026, there is a growing call for changes in how individual investors share information. Unverified corporate criticism or provocative posts designed to lower stock prices can be subject to mediation by the Press Arbitration Commission or punished as defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act.

• When writing online posts related to stocks, only objective facts and official data with clear sources must be used.
• Even simple expressions of opinion or corporate criticism carry a high risk of being sued for defamation if the purpose for public interest is not clearly proven.
• It is important to objectively assess whether your writing is simple slander or sound analysis based on reasonable grounds.

In the flood of information, fact-checking has become a necessity, not an option. Just as a carelessly thrown stone can be fatal to a frog, we must remember that a single irresponsible post online can affect someone’s life or even the survival of a company.

The online space is certainly convenient and beneficial, but it always comes with responsibility. Recent cases like the ‘Sojang’ verdict remind us of the cold truth that online conduct directly leads to real-world legal and economic responsibilities. Now is the era that requires ‘responsible comments’ beyond just ‘positive comments.’

게시물 Defamation: What the 170 Million Won Verdict Against YouTuber ‘Sojang’ Shows이 솜삽 블로그에 처음 등장했습니다.