Accused of Insulting in Local Housing Cooperative Group Chat
Fined 1.5 Million Won in 1st and 2nd Trials → Supreme Court Remands
"Difficult to Conclude External Defamation Occurred"
The Supreme Court ruled that a union member who was found guilty in lower courts for criticizing the chairman of a regional housing cooperative promotion committee as a "thief" and an "irresponsible person" in a group chat did not commit the crime of insult, stating that although the expressions were rude, they do not constitute defamation.
According to the legal community on the 30th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) overturned the previous ruling that sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 1.5 million won on charges of insult and remanded the case to the Suwon District Court on the 8th.
From December 2019 to April 2020, Mr. A posted a total of nine messages in a KakaoTalk group chat consisting of about 70 union members using his mobile phone, containing expressions such as "thief," "vile and ugly," "a wolf in sheep's clothing," "blinded by selfish desires," "incompetent person," "irresponsible person," and "malicious group," thereby insulting the promotion committee chairman Mr. B.
Both the first and second trials found Mr. A guilty of insult and sentenced him to a fine of 1.5 million won. They judged that the expressions used by Mr. A were abstract judgments or contemptuous emotions that could lower Mr. B's social evaluation, constituting insult against Mr. B.
However, the Supreme Court overturned and remanded the case, stating that "there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles regarding the meaning of insult under criminal law." The Supreme Court explained, "Whether an expression constitutes insult under the crime of insult must be strictly judged based on objective circumstances such as the relationship between the parties, the circumstances leading to the expression, the method of expression, and the situation at the time, to determine if the expression could harm the external honor of the other party."
The Supreme Court stated, "In this case, the posts made by Mr. A are mild abstract expressions containing negative or critical opinions or emotions about the victim, or rude expressions directed at the victim," and added, "It is difficult to conclude that the posts contain expressions that could harm the victim's external honor."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
