Disinformation Campaign Targets Judge in South Korean President’s Impeachment Trial
South Korea finds itself embroiled in a political maelstrom as its Constitutional Court deliberates the fate of suspended President Yoon Suk Yeol. Facing an impeachment vote stemming from his controversial attempt to impose martial law, Yoon’s future hangs in the balance. Amidst this tense climate, a relentless disinformation campaign has targeted Moon Hyung-bae, the interim head of the court presiding over Yoon’s impeachment trial. This orchestrated onslaught of false accusations seeks to undermine the court’s legitimacy and cast doubt on the impartiality of its impending verdict.
Moon, a liberal-leaning judge appointed in 2019, has become the focal point of a smear campaign fueled by fabricated evidence and manipulated narratives. As legal experts predict Yoon’s removal from office, his conservative People Power Party (PPP) and fervent supporters have launched a barrage of attacks against Moon, desperate to discredit the potential outcome. These attacks, ranging from debunked claims of child pornography involvement to falsified allegations of communist sympathies, demonstrate a concerted effort to erode public trust in the judicial process.
The most egregious disinformation tactic involved manipulating an online comment made by Moon on a high school alumni forum. By attaching a sexually graphic image of a minor to his unrelated comment, propagandists fabricated a screenshot that falsely implicated Moon in sharing child pornography. The PPP amplified this fabricated evidence, demanding Moon’s resignation and accusing him of consuming pornography. While the party later retracted its statement and issued an apology after the manipulation was exposed, the damage had been done. Protesters brandishing signs labeling Moon a "porn judge" outside the impeachment hearings demonstrate the lingering impact of the false narrative.
Beyond the child pornography smear, the disinformation campaign extends to fabricating evidence suggesting Moon’s allegiance to China. Doctored images showing him speaking in front of a Chinese flag, rather than the original South Korean flag, were circulated online as "proof" of his communist sympathies. The intent was to tap into existing anti-China sentiment among some of Yoon’s supporters, further inflaming the political divide. A fake Elon Musk post condemning a "corrupt judge" was also falsely attributed to Moon, demonstrating the campaign’s reach and sophistication.
High-ranking PPP officials, including Kwon Seong-dong, contributed to the spread of false information, alleging close ties between Moon and opposition leader Lee Jae-myung. Despite the court denying these accusations, Kwon offered no apology, further fueling distrust in the impartiality of the judicial proceedings. This coordinated effort to discredit Moon and the court demonstrates a calculated strategy to undermine the legitimacy of the impeachment trial and its potential outcome.
Analysts view this disinformation campaign as a deliberate attempt to undermine South Korean institutions and influence the upcoming elections, which must be held within 60 days of Yoon’s removal. By casting doubt on the integrity of the court and its judges, the campaign aims to discredit the impeachment process and protect Yoon’s political future. Bai Byoung-inn, a politics professor at Kookmin University, argues that the PPP seeks to delay the trial and wage a "war of opinions" through disinformation, potentially influencing the outcome of the impending elections. He further notes that the increasingly extremist nature of Yoon’s supporters has emboldened these attacks, pushing the ruling party further to the right and hindering their ability to distance themselves from Yoon’s controversial actions.
The Constitutional Court, while declining to comment on individual allegations, has expressed concern over the disinformation campaign and its potential impact on the judiciary’s authority. A spokesperson emphasized that the impeachment judgment would be based on objective application of the Constitution and laws, not on the justices’ personal leanings. Despite the potential for libel charges under Korean law, Judge Moon has refrained from taking legal action against those spreading false information. This complex web of disinformation casts a shadow over South Korea’s political landscape, challenging the integrity of its democratic institutions and raising concerns about the impact of fabricated narratives on the future of the nation.
