Celebrity Zhao Junshuo was sued for aggravated defamation and found not guilty in the second trial

Famous mouthpiece Zhao Junshuo posted four articles on Facebook in February last year, alleging that the article "Interpreting Trump's Tariff War in Vernacular" published by Professor Chen Shifen (pseudonym Weng Dari) in the United States was a slight rewrite of someone else's original article, criticizing Weng as a "plagiarism expert who was caught plagiarizing." Weng Darui believed that what Zhao said was untrue and derogatory to his reputation, so he filed a criminal private prosecution against Zhao Junshe for aggravated defamation. Zhao was not guilty in the first trial. The high court in the second instance held that Zhao had subjectively fulfilled his reasonable verification obligations and had no subjective malice. It rejected Weng's appeal and found Zhao Junshuo innocent.

Weng Darui accused Zhao Junshuo of publishing consecutive articles on February 17 last year, claiming that his academic friends used plagiarism software to compare Weng's article "Interpreting Trump's Tariff War in Vernacular" and believed that the article "referenced and slightly modified" four other people's original articles, insinuating the author. (Weng) is a "plagiarism expert who was caught plagiarizing" and "caught by the plagiarism software used by the university to be highly similar to four articles." However, he did not provide any evidence for comparison. He only used a vague description to assert that Weng "could not write those words" and called the author a "plagiarism expert".

Ondari claimed that he was a senior scholar in the United States and held a professorship. If his article was indeed plagiarized, not only would his reputation be tarnished, but his teaching position would also be in jeopardy. The accusation of plagiarism was a serious matter. He posted a post asking Zhao to immediately retract the article and apologize, but Zhao ignored it and continued to accuse him of plagiarism using "computer comparison results" that were unknown and may not be correct. This seriously damaged his reputation, so he filed a private prosecution against Zhao She for aggravated defamation.

Zhao responded that his article did not mention the author's name, nor did he mention Weng Wen's website. He only stated objective facts. He sent Weng's article to Assistant Professor Liao Baicang and asked him to compare it through the plagiarism software used by the university. He did all reasonable verification before publishing and did not infringe his reputation.

In the first instance, the Taipei District Court summoned Liao to testify. Liao testified that he did not use Turnitin, but used generative AI to check whether there was plagiarism. The judge believed that this proved that Zhao's remarks were not true. However, the judge pointed out that for Zhao, Zhao did ask Liao to confirm whether Weng's article was plagiarized. During the discussion between the two, Liao did not clearly indicate the name of the software used. Zhao relied on the trust relationship between him and Liao in the past and mistakenly believed that Liao was using Turnitin as before. Zhao subjectively fulfilled his reasonable verification obligations and was not knowingly false or malicious and grossly reckless. Therefore, Zhao was found not guilty.

The High Court of Second Instance held that the judgment of the first instance was correct. Although Zhao had conducted reasonable and sufficient verification before publishing the article, it was only because of Liao's reply that Zhao mistakenly believed that the plagiarism was true. There was no subjective intention to knowingly or grossly reckless malice. Zhao had performed a considerable degree of verification obligations in advance and lacked the subjective mens rea of ​​defamation. Zhao was still found not guilty. No appeal is allowed and the entire case is confirmed.