logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2013. 12. 12. 선고 2013도4555 판결
[상관모욕][공2014상,215]
Main Issues

Whether “a superior”, which is the object of the offense of insult under the Military Criminal Act, is included by the President (affirmative)

Summary of Judgment

The offense of insult of a superior under the Military Criminal Act, namely, the social evaluation of his superior, that is, the maintenance of the order and the system of acceptance of the military organization as well as the external reputation, the legislative purport of the offense of insult of a superior, Articles 2 subparag. 1 and 64(2) of the Military Criminal Act, Article 74 of the Constitution, Articles 6, 8, 9, and 10 of the Organization of the National Armed Forces Act, Article 47-2 of the Military Personnel Management Act, and Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Military Service Rule, shall be deemed to be included in the “concept of a superior” in the crime of insult of a superior.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 74 of the Constitution; Articles 2 subparag. 1 and 64(2) of the Military Criminal Act; Articles 6, 8, 9, and 10 of the Act on the Organization of the National Armed Forces; Article 47-2 of the Military Personnel Management Act; Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Military Service Rule

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Defendant

Defense Counsel

Law Firm Eastsung, Attorneys Lee Jae-hoon et al.

Judgment of the lower court

High Court for Armed Forces Decision 2012No244 Decided April 12, 2013

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 64(2) of the Military Criminal Act provides that a person who insults his/her superior by publicly announcing documents, drawings, or performances, or by making a speech or public performance, shall be punished by imprisonment with or without labor for not more than three years. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Military Criminal Act provides that a person who has the authority to issue an order in relation to the uniforms of order refers to a person who has the authority to issue an order in relation to the uniforms of order, and a person with a higher rank and a higher rank in cases

Article 74 of the Constitution provides that Article 6 of the Act on the Organization of the National Armed Forces may pass through the National Armed Forces. Article 8 of the Act on the Organization of the National Armed Forces provides that the Minister of National Defense takes charge of military affairs under the order of the President. Articles 9 and 10 of the Act on the Organization of the National Armed Forces stipulate that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chiefs of Staff of the respective armed forces shall be ordered by the Minister of National Defense. Meanwhile, Article 2 Subparag. 4 of the Military Personnel Management Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 21750 on September 29, 2009 by delegation of Article 47-2 of the Military Personnel Management Act, which stipulates that “The term “the former” refers to a person who has the authority to issue an order among persons in a command-related relationship and who has the authority to issue an order from the person with the authority to command directly.”

According to the Military Criminal Act, the offense of insult of superior officers under the Military Criminal Act, namely, the social evaluation of his superior officers, namely, the maintenance of the order and the system of acceptance of the military organization as well as the external reputation, the legislative intent of the offense of insult of superior officers, and the systematic structure of the legal norm as seen earlier, shall be deemed to be included by the President in the offense of insult

In this regard, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of this case (excluding the part of innocence) that the defendant insultingd his superior, who is his superior, to his Twitter. In so doing, the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the "confluence", "defluence", "defluence", and "political act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)

arrow