Star News | Reporter Yoon Sang-geun
(From left) Kang Daniel, YouTuber “De-Aitang” operator A / Photo = News1
Following the appeal filed by A, the operator of the YouTube channel "De-Aitang," who was charged with defaming singer Kang Daniel, a decision to refer the case to mediation has been made by the appellate court.
The Civil Division 27 of the Central District Court of Seoul announced on November 27, 2024, during the verdict hearing for Kang Daniel's lawsuit seeking approximately 100 million KRW in damages against A, that "A must pay Kang Daniel 30 million KRW along with delayed interest, and also bear 70% of the litigation costs," indicating a partial victory for the plaintiff.
Both A and Kang Daniel subsequently filed appeals against the ruling, leading the case to progress to the second trial.
The 5-2 Civil Division (Appeal) of the Seoul Central District Court, which took over the case, made a mediation referral decision on the 3rd. Mediation referral is a process of resolving a lawsuit through mutual agreement between the parties. The process involves deriving a compromise through mediation sessions.
A was indicted for defaming Kang Daniel by uploading a video titled "The Scandalous Private Life of the National Boyfriend Actor Idol" on the YouTube channel "De-Aitang" in 2022. De-Aitang is a YouTube channel that creates videos based on malicious rumors about idols, and since 2021, it has published numerous videos defaming various celebrities and influencers. The channel has since been deleted.
In addition to Kang Daniel, A is also facing legal action from IVE's Jang Won-young and her agency Starship Entertainment, who won in the first trial but are currently undergoing the appealed process due to A's objection. Furthermore, BTS members V and Jungkook, as well as Aespa's Karina and EXO's Suho, have also filed lawsuits against A.
During the final trial session for the criminal charges of defamation, A expressed in his closing statement, "I was immature and think very little. I feel sorry for hurting the victims. I ask for leniency," and claimed, "I had no intention to defame Kang Daniel, and I was unaware of the falsehood," requesting a not guilty verdict.
However, the first trial court stated, "While the defendant claims that the posted video was for the public good, it is difficult to see it that way, and there is a purpose to defame the victim. Additionally, the content focused on private matters, and its authenticity is unclear, making the source difficult to specify. The defendant has negatively impacted the victim's activities and I believe the content was created with the intention to defame." It further pointed out, "The defendant has not specified any concrete sources and made no effort to clarify them."
The court commented, "The circumstances of the crime and the guilt are not light. The defendant has consistently provided implausible excuses from the investigation stage to the courtroom, showing a lack of remorse. Moreover, they have not been forgiven by the victim and have taken no measures to remedy the harm." The court remarked, "By posting provocative and sensational content on the high-reach medium of YouTube, the defendant has caused irreparable harm, and thus, the need for strict punishment is warranted. The defendant has consistently displayed implausible excuses and a lack of remorse throughout this court process."
Immediately after the verdict, Kang Daniel's agency ARA stated, "Regardless of the defendant’s appeal, we will file a civil lawsuit for 100 million KRW separately from the criminal procedure. This is a minimal defensive measure to prevent any further goodwill victims from arising and to ensure such incidents do not recur."
As Kang Daniel's side has filed an appeal against the first trial ruling and is taking strong legal action against A, it raises questions about the likelihood of reaching an agreement between both parties.