Grounds for Conviction in Lower Courts → Overturned by Supreme Court… “Posted in the Course of Criticizing Committee Operations”
“Abstract Expressions with Negative Emotions… Not Expressions that Violate External Honor”,
ⓒ News1 DB,
,
, ‘(Seoul=News1) Reporter Yoon Da-jung = The Supreme Court has ruled that comments targeting the committee chairman, such as “thief X” and “a person without qualifications,” posted in a group chat room by a member of a local housing cooperative criticizing the operation of the promotion committee, do not constitute the crime of insult.’,
,
, ‘The Supreme Court’s Third Division (presided by Justice Lee Heung-goo) overturned the prior ruling that imposed a fine of 1.5 million won on Mr. A, who was indicted on charges of insult, and remanded the case to the Suwon District Court, it was announced on the 30th.’,
,
, ‘Mr. A was accused of publicly insulting Mr. B, the chairman of the promotion committee, by posting messages that included expressions like “thief X,” “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” “blinded by greed,” “a person without qualifications,” “an irresponsible person,” and “a vicious group” in the KakaoTalk group chat room with 70 or so members from December 24, 2019, to April 27, 2020.’,
,
, ‘In 2019, conflict arose between the local housing cooperative’s promotion committee and its members, which led to the formation of an emergency response committee by disgruntled members. Mr. A joined this new committee and posted such comments in the chat room composed of the response committee members while criticizing the existing committee.’,
,
, ‘Both the first and second trials judged the insult charges as guilty, sentencing Mr. A to a fine of 1.5 million won.’,
,
, ‘It was determined that the expressions used by Mr. A could lower Mr. B’s social evaluation, constituting abstract judgment or contemptuous emotion towards Mr. B and thus amounted to insult.’,
,
, ‘However, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts misunderstood the legal principles regarding the meaning of insult under criminal law, thus ordering a retrial.’,
,
, ‘The Supreme Court stated, “Whether an expression qualifies as insult in the context of criminal defamation should be strictly evaluated based on various objective circumstances, such as the relationship between the parties, the context in which the expression was made, the method of expression, and the situation at the time, to determine if it is an expression that violates the external honor of the subject.”‘,
,
, ‘Furthermore, it explained, “If an expression is merely rude or lacking in etiquette to the extent that it may make the other party feel uncomfortable, or if it involves negative or critical opinions or emotions about the other party accompanied by mild, abstract expressions or insults, it cannot be deemed an expression that qualifies as violating external honor, thus not meeting the criteria for insult.”‘,
,
, ‘Regarding Mr. A’s reasons for posting the messages, he argued, “The intention was to inform the emergency response committee members of Mr. B’s illegal activities and to discuss future response strategies.”‘,
,
, ‘The Supreme Court judged that “the writings containing these expressions are merely composed of mild, abstract expressions of negative or critical opinions or emotions towards the victim, or impolite expressions directed at the victim,” and thus concluded that “it is difficult to assert that the writings contain expressions that would violate the external honor of the victim.”‘