Cyber-Wrecker Prevention Bill Why Forfeiting Fake News Profits Matters

Together with attorney Lee Goeun of Ongang Law Firm, I have filed a legislative petition for an "Act on Forfeiture of Profits from Fake News by Cyber-Wreckers and Punitive Damages." It takes the form of an amendment to the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization. This article walks through why the bill is necessary, which gaps in the current system it fills, and how the National Assembly's national consent petition procedure works.

Why aren't cyber-wreckers being eliminated?

In consultations, I have handled many cases of defamation and false-fact dissemination, and I have repeatedly seen the same two structural limits.

• The sentencing ceiling: Defamation by false fact under the Information and Communications Network Act typically carries a low sentence; about 85% or more of cases end in fines. Imprisonment is very rare.
• The time ceiling: From the filing of a complaint to a first-instance judgment, it typically takes roughly two years. During that period, the revenue from the fake news keeps accumulating.

On top of these, there is the ceiling on damages for emotional distress. Typical court awards range from KRW 10–20 million; awards above that are rare. By contrast, the revenue cyber-wreckers earn from fake news targeting public figures typically runs from hundreds of millions to tens of billions of won.

Why the argument that "existing defamation law is enough" falls short

Defamation punishment has typically been designed around "denouncing the conduct" rather than "restoring the victim." That is why the following gaps stand out.

• The asymmetry of an offender who earns hundreds of millions of won from a single piece of fake news but is wrapped up with a fine of just a few million won
• The "exposure time" during which the fake news is continuously searched and recirculated during the roughly two years until the criminal judgment
• The structure in which the victim's social and economic damages remain unrecovered because civil damages are capped low

The two pillars of this legislative petition

To address the issue, the petition combines the following two pillars.

• Forfeiture of fake-news profits: Confiscate or recoup the advertising revenue, sponsorships, and donations earned from disseminating false information, sending the signal that "fake news doesn't pay."
• Punitive damages: Beyond compensating the harm, recognize damages large enough to deter the conduct itself, simultaneously achieving real recovery for victims and a society-wide preventive effect.

Only when these two pillars are combined does the "revenue-recovery gap" — through which offenders slip out at one stage of the criminal, civil, or administrative track — get meaningfully closed.

Doesn't this conflict with "freedom of the press"?

Freedom of the press is at the core of liberal democracy. That is precisely why journalists are typically required to meet strict fact-checking duties and social responsibilities.

I view cyber-wreckers as closer to "pseudo-journalism": they dress themselves up as "agents of justice" or "fair journalists," but typically generate enormous revenue without fulfilling fact-checking duties or correction-and-reply procedures. This petition is not about restricting "freedom of the press" — it is about blocking "conduct that takes only the profit while escaping the responsibilities of journalism."

How does a national consent petition in the National Assembly work?

• Registration: The petition is posted on the National Assembly website
• 50,000 signatures: If 50,000 people sign within 30 days of posting, it moves to the next stage
• Referral to the competent committee: The petition is referred to the competent committee of the National Assembly for review of the bill
• Plenary: After committee passage, it follows the plenary voting procedure

Securing 50,000 signatures within a short period is typically not easy. The 20 seconds each supporter spends consenting is the starting point that brings the reckless run of cyber-wreckers to a halt.

Procedures I typically recommend to victims

• Preserve evidence: Posting timestamps, screenshots, URLs, and external materials that allow estimation of advertising revenue
• Trace the dissemination path: The original publisher and re-dissemination paths of the source video or post
• Criminal complaint: Typically review false-fact defamation, insult, and Information and Communications Network Act violations in layers
• Civil damages and injunction: Pursue damages together with provisional disposition (post deletion / no-re-dissemination injunction)

In consultations, many people give up saying "it has already spread too far," but evidence preservation and a quick response ultimately decide the result.

Frequently asked questions

Q. If I sue a cyber-wrecker for damages, how much can I actually recover?

A. First-instance damages for emotional distress are typically in the KRW 10–20 million range. The amount varies with the scale of exposure, recoverability of the harm, and the offender's means; in practice, actual recovery often hinges on the offender's means. It is also worth reviewing whether to pursue provisional disposition and a criminal complaint in parallel.

Q. What does it take to support the national consent petition?

A. Access the National Assembly's national consent petition website, complete identity verification, and click the consent button. It typically takes 1–2 minutes. The exact URL of the petition can be found in the video description.

Chat with us now

Closing

In line with the saying "where profit is, crime follows," the most effective way to block the fake-news dissemination of cyber-wreckers is typically "making sure they cannot keep the profit." I hope this legislative petition becomes the starting point of that change.

Chat with us now