YouTuber with 300,000 subscribers gets suspended sentence for targeting driver parked in disability zone

A man in his 30s who repeatedly posted videos on his YouTube channel falsely accusing a driver of illegally parking in a disabled parking zone — while the vehicle was carrying a child with a brain lesion disability — has received a suspended prison sentence.

Seoul Eastern District Court Judge Chu Jin-seok sentenced the man, identified only as A, to 10 months in prison, suspended for two years, on Sept. 8 on charges of defamation under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, and violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.

A is accused of posting videos on his YouTube channel last December claiming that a woman, identified as B, had illegally parked in a disabled parking zone at a parking lot in Gangdong-gu, Seoul.

He claimed the veterans' permit displayed on B's vehicle was "a permit that cannot be used after 2017" and said parking in a disabled zone without authorization carries a fine of 2 million won ($1,450).

B rebuffed the claim, saying she was entitled to use the disabled parking zone because her husband is a war veteran and her child has a disability.

In fact, B's vehicle displayed a disabled parking permit marked "guardian parking permitted," and the veterans' permit on the vehicle showed it had been issued in 2020, according to court records.

A nonetheless reported B to the Gangdong-gu district office and went on to post four videos through January — each showing the last three digits of B's license plate — claiming her vehicle had been fined for illegal parking.

B did receive a pre-notification of a 100,000-won fine as a result of A's report, but after she provided evidence to the contrary, the fine was canceled in January.

The court criticized A for using his YouTube channel, which has more than 300,000 subscribers, to repeatedly damage the victim's reputation and expose her personal information.

"The nature of the offense is poor, given the circumstances, content, means, methods and frequency of the crimes," the court said. "The defendant committed the offense again despite having been punished multiple times in the past for defamation or insults through YouTube."

However, the court took into account mitigating factors: that A admitted to the offenses and sought the victim's forgiveness, that he had partially obscured the victim's information in the videos in an attempt to limit the harm, and that the crimes were somewhat impulsive and reckless, committed in the course of responding to broadcasts that criticized him.

Prosecutors have appealed the first-instance ruling.