[News Today] ‘BAD PARENTS’ INFO LEAKER FINED

[LEAD]
"Bad fathers and mothers." The term can't get anymore straightforward than that. It's a site that publicly exposes "bad parents" who dodge child support payments after getting divorced. The Supreme Court has confirmed the conviction of the leader of the group. This decision follows a January case against the original "Bad Fathers" site founder. We look into why such a verdict was reached.

[REPORT]
"Bad Fathers & Mothers" opened in 2018.

Created by Kang Min-seo, the operator of the Child Care Resolution Group, this website discloses the personal information of parents who refuse to pay child support after divorce.

Park In-ok raised two children alone for 20 years after her husband left. His details are also on the website.

Park In-ok / Divorcee not receiving child support funds (2020)
Even if the case reaches the Supreme Court, It's just the same verdict. I'm labeled
a bad creditor, while he continues life as usual.

However, Park's ex-spouse sued the website operator for defamation because he claimed it contained false information about him.

The first trial found Kang not guilty because detecting false information among the personal information Kang had obtained wouldn't have been easy.

Prosecutors appealed, adding the charge of defamation by disclosure of facts. The appeals court accepted, ruling that even though the disclosure raised public attention about unpaid child support, the main aim of the post was public defamation. The appellate court levied Kang a fine of 800,000 won, or some 600 dollars.

The Supreme Court also upheld the appellate court's verdict and found Kang guilty.

The Supreme Court ruled that there was no fact-checking or opportunity for the father to explain his stance. Additionally, it found that since the children were already adults in 2019, there was no urgent need for child support payments.

In January, the Supreme Court also ruled against Koo Bon-chang, the operator of the name-and-shame website formerly known as "Bad Fathers." Despite claims of working for public interest, the court confirmed it as an illegal private sanction that violates personal rights.