South Korea’s Democratic Party to file defamation complaint over remarks about the president.
The Democratic Party of Korea announced on the 12th that it plans to file a criminal complaint against Jang In-su, a former MBC journalist, for defamation under Article 70 of Korea’s Information and Communications Network Act. The announcement came at a press briefing at the National Assembly, where officials said the case centers on Jang’s appearance on a popular online program.
Party officials said Jang’s statements alleging a “deal to drop charges” involving President Lee Jae-myung constitute spreading false information online that damages the president and the government’s honor. They cited remarks made during a broadcast in which Jang claimed inside information about how prosecutors and officials allegedly respond to the president’s interests.
Kim Hyun, head of the Democratic Party’s National Public Communications Committee, and Kim Dong-a, the deputy head of the Special Committee for Countermeasures against False and Manipulated Information, framed the move as a strong, legally grounded response. They said the party had been reviewing the matter and would pursue all appropriate steps to verify facts and to defend official reputation.
In response to criticism that the party acted slowly, the officials argued they had been examining the content, circumstances, and veracity of the claims before taking action. They warned that if media reporting distort the facts, the party would apply to the Korea Press Arbitration Commission to request corrections and a right of reply. They also pledged to monitor and counter online spread of the claims on YouTube, online communities, and social networks.
The party clarified that it has not filed a complaint against Kim Eo-jun, host of the program where the allegations were aired. Officials said a legal review concluded that Kim Eo-jun is not subject to the charge in this case.
Jang In-su, the former MBC reporter, had claimed on Kim Eo-jun’s News Factory that a senior government official close to the president had relayed messages to several high-ranking prosecutors telling them that “my word is the president’s will” and to drop the charges concerning the president’s case. The program has been a focal point in discussions over the boundaries between political commentary and misinformation.
Why this matters beyond Korea: The case highlights how defamation and misinformation allegations intersect with political power, media, and online platforms in a major Asian economy. For U.S. readers, the developments touch on how Korea regulates speech online, the potential chilling effects for journalists and commentators, and how platforms such as YouTube and social networks play a role in political discourse. As Korea remains a key hub for global tech supply chains, and as U.S.-based platforms operate there, regulatory actions and arbitration measures can influence how content is produced, moderated, and litigated. The episode also illustrates how political actors use formal legal channels to respond to claims that affect government credibility, which can have broader implications for market confidence, governance, and international perceptions of Korea’s regulatory climate.