Cyber Wrecker Prevention Bill and Free Expression

The concern we hear most often about the Cyber Wrecker Prevention Bill, which we have been pushing through legislative petition, is this: will this law restrict citizen freedom of expression and press freedom? Can politicians weaponize this law for their own ends? I believe these are legitimate social questions. At the same time, once you understand the two pillars that actually structure this law, much of that concern can be addressed. This article explains the two pillars of the Cyber Wrecker Prevention Bill and their purpose.

The Problem the Bill Seeks to Solve

Over the past several years, harm from fake news has accumulated across celebrities, politicians, and ordinary citizens.

• Harm to public figures: The lingering image from a false expose often makes returning to public life extremely difficult.
• Harm to entertainers: Even when an injunction proves the exposure false, the false stigma rarely disappears in practice.
• Harm to politicians: False allegations directly affect election results, and no compensation follows when the falsity is later revealed.
• Harm to ordinary citizens: Famous YouTubers publish ordinary people identities, and the spread accelerates through online communities.

The core problem is the asymmetry between the cost borne by fake-news producers and the harm borne by victims. We petitioned for this bill to realign that asymmetry.

Pillar One: Profit Disgorgement and Punitive Damages for Defamation by False Statement

The first pillar concerns profit disgorgement and punitive damages when defamation by false statement is established. The structure is:

• Confiscation of profits: Broadcast and ad revenue generated by fake news is disgorged.
• Punitive damages: Damages to victims are recognized up to a defined multiple of ordinary damages.

Under the existing system, even when defamation by false statement is established, most cases end with a fine, and the consolation award for victims has typically been around 10 million won, at most 20 million won. By contrast, the profits a fake-news producer captures can be tens to hundreds of times larger. This structure is the core reason fake news is so hard to stop.

Disgorging all profit and aligning damages with reality removes the economic rationale for fake news. The asymmetry only realigns once this pillar takes effect.

Pillar Two: Defamation by True Statement and Protection of Ordinary Citizens

The second pillar is the most frequently misunderstood. Because defamation by true statement also falls within this law, critics argue the bill muzzles free expression. But the design intent is precisely the opposite.

For public figures, the Korean Supreme Court has consistently held that statements of fact serving the public interest are not punishable as defamation. Where matters such as a public figure prostitution, embezzlement, or DUI intersect with public interest, defamation by true statement is almost never established. In short, even after this bill passes, critical reporting on public figures will not be directly restricted.

The real problem lies with ordinary citizens. Certain YouTube channels indiscriminately publish ordinary citizens private lives and frame private vengeance as justice while reaping enormous profit. Our constitutional criminal system is designed so a person who committed a crime is punished by law and then has a path back into society. The principle that private vengeance must not substitute for criminal punishment is one of the most basic foundations of the rule of law.

The second pillar of this bill is exactly the safeguard against such private vengeance targeting ordinary citizens. The identity disclosure system in our country is an exceptional form of honor punishment imposed only by court order. If defamation by true statement is allowed to run rampant in the private sphere, each YouTuber effectively exercises law-enforcement power individually.

Effects of the Bill, Summarized

I summarize the effects of this bill into five points.

• Loss of economic rationality in producing fake news: Once profit disgorgement and punitive damages function, fake news ceases to be financially viable.
• Real recovery for victims: Damages that hovered around 10 million won begin to scale with the actual harm.
• Critical speech against public figures remains protected: Statements of fact tied to the public interest remain unpunished.
• Protection of ordinary citizens from private vengeance: The structure that endlessly pillories an ordinary citizen who has already faced social accountability is cut off.
• Restoration of the rule of law: The drift of private vengeance substituting for criminal punishment is realigned.

Responding to Concerns

Let me address the concerns directly.

• Will press freedom be restricted? Truthful reporting and statements of fact serving the public interest remain protected. Only fake news bears responsibility.
• Can politicians weaponize this law for self-protection? Because the Supreme Court doctrine that statements of fact about public figures tied to public interest are not punishable remains in place, the room for politicians to use this law for self-protection is very limited.
• Will I be punished for pointing out someone else wrongdoing? Statements of fact tied to the public interest are not punishable. False statements are also not protected by freedom of expression to begin with.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. Will YouTube channel operations shrink if this bill passes? A. Truthful reporting and public-interest factual statements remain protected. What shrinks is fake-news production and private-vengeance content targeting ordinary citizens.

Q. Can someone already harmed by fake news benefit from this law? A. Acts after the effective date fall within scope. Harm before then continues to be litigated under existing defamation law and damages doctrine.

Q. What alternatives exist if this bill does not pass? A. Existing defamation, information and communications network law, and civil damages doctrines must be relied upon. But the asymmetry between fake-news profits and victim recovery remains intact.

A Law That Protects All of Us from Fake News

As an attorney, I have met victims of fake news far too often. The wounds run deeper than what criminal punishment or damage awards can heal. The Cyber Wrecker Prevention Bill is an attempt to bring that recovery a little closer to reality. To protect freedom of expression itself, the structures of fake news and private vengeance must be realigned.

If you have been harmed by fake news or private vengeance, you can also start a chat consultation now.

Managing Partner Noh Jong-eon / Jonjae Law Firm Family, Criminal, and Public-Interest Legislation Team Last reviewed 2026-05-30

This article is general legal information and does not substitute for legal advice on individual matters. Outcomes vary by facts; for specific disputes, please seek a separate consultation.