Rep. An Min-seok of the Democratic Party of Korea, who raised various allegations against Choi Seo-won (formerly known as Choi Soon-sil), known as a key figure in the Park Geun-hye administration's scandal, is heading to his vehicle after the first trial session for the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (defamation) held at the Suwon District Court in Yeongtong District, Suwon City, Gyeonggi Province on the morning of the 23rd. /Courtesy of News1

Ahn Min-seok, a former member of the Democratic Party of Korea, who was indicted on charges of defamation for remarks made about Choi Seo-won (formerly known as Choi Soon-sil), a key figure in the Park Geun-hye administration's corruption scandal, again asserted his innocence during the first trial.

During the sentencing hearing for the defamation charges under the Information and Communications Network Act, presided over by Judge Seol In-young of the Suwon District Court on the 10th, the former lawmaker said, "Rather, the person who was defamed is myself," adding, "Choi Seo-won has repeatedly filed malicious lawsuits against me, who persistently exposed her ugly corruption scandals, and some conservative YouTubers have demonized me."

The former lawmaker stated, "I stood against injustice, not against Choi Seo-won," and said, "If my statements made to establish justice and truth are punishable as defamation, then Choi Seo-won, who has tarnished the reputation of the public, should face the maximum penalty under the law."

He continued, "If the prosecution had uncovered the suspicion of Choi Seo-won's hidden assets that I raised through the media years ago, I would not be standing here today," adding, "The prosecution's intention to punish my statements and expressions is no different from punishing someone who yells 'thief' while catching a thief for disturbing the peace."

Ahn's lawyer argued, "In the related civil suit for damages, it was determined that there was no liability for damages due to exculpatory reasons, but the prosecution ignored the true meaning of the defendant's entire statement and charged defamation by focusing only on trivial parts, which raises the possibility of abuse of prosecutorial power," and noted, "Considering the overall intention and context of the statements, the constitutional right to freedom of expression, and the public's right to know, the facts of this indictment pertain to the expression of opinion."

The prosecution requested that the court impose a one-year prison sentence on the former lawmaker, as before.