Exclusive: Worker loses lawsuit over 'commuter villain' post that obscured face with obscene gesture

In July 2024, a targeting post appeared on Blind, an anonymous platform for office workers. It included a photo of a person who had placed a bag on the seat beside them on a commuter bus. The subject's face was obscured with an obscene hand gesture.

Person A, who realized the post was aimed at her, was furious. She suspected Person B, with whom she had clashed on the commuter bus over the same issue months earlier. A filed a 16 million won ($11,900) damages lawsuit against B and also lodged a criminal complaint.

So how did it all turn out?

A and B had been in conflict since October 2023.

At the time, A was sitting in the aisle seat while leaving the window seat empty. A claimed B had picked a fight by telling her to "have some manners." Disputes continued after that. When A placed her belongings on the aisle seat to occupy both spots, B asked her to observe bus etiquette — but according to B, A responded by shouting and making threats.

The morning after the targeting post appeared, A confronted B. She followed B off the commuter bus and said, "Aren't you going to delete the illegally taken photo?" and "I guess you don't grasp the seriousness of the situation." B replied, "I deleted it. I deleted it. I'm sorry," then walked away.

A became convinced that B had written the post and filed both civil and criminal complaints.

A sought about 16 million won in her damages suit against B. She said the incident had led to a depression diagnosis and claimed emotional distress from being mocked, verbally abused and threatened by B, who was 10 years her junior. She also argued that she could no longer use the commuter bus, forcing her to spend more on transportation and commute longer — losses she said B should compensate.

During the trial, A argued that B had photographed her without consent and "damaged her portrait rights, privacy and reputation by posting the photo online alongside language that lowered her social standing."

The court rejected A's claims. Both the first and second instance courts found insufficient grounds to conclude that B had written the targeting post on Blind. The first instance court dismissed A's claim in December last year.

A appealed, but the second instance court reached the same conclusion. Civil Division 5-3 of the Uijeongbu District Court, presided over by Chief Judge Choi Ji-young, also ruled against A in late August, ordering her to bear the litigation costs as well.

The appeals court noted that B had been investigated four times by the company's ethics office and integrity management team following A's complaint, and that the probe was closed with a finding of "no ethics violation."

The court also found that the Blind account that had posted the content was permanently suspended, and that when B logged into her own account in the presence of a company representative, it was confirmed that the suspended account was not hers.

A argued that B's "I deleted it" response during the confrontation proved she was the author, but the court was unconvinced. It said B had explained that "A grabbed her arm, kept following her and repeatedly blocked her path, so she apologized simply to get out of the situation quickly" — a version of events the court found plausible.

The court further found insufficient evidence that B had pushed, threatened or attempted to inflict secondary harm on A, adding that the exchanges between the two amounted to a mutual argument and could not be seen as B unilaterally insulting or threatening A.

Taking all these circumstances together, the court concluded that A's damages claim — premised on B having secretly photographed her, posted the content and subjected her to insults and threats — could not be accepted.

The ruling was finalized Monday. A did not appeal the second instance decision.

The criminal complaint A filed against B was also closed without charges. The Ilsan Western Police Station decided in January last year not to refer the case to prosecutors, finding no violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection. A filed an objection, but the Goyang Branch of the Uijeongbu District Prosecutors Office also declined to indict B in February last year. A then filed a fiscal appeal, but the Seoul High Court rejected it as well, finding no grounds to conclude that the prosecutor's decision not to indict had been improper.