[1] The meaning of “defluence” as referred to in the crime of insult / In a case where an expression that is not likely to undermine the social evaluation of the other party’s personal value is indicated in a somewhat unusual manner, whether such expression constitutes the elements of the crime of insult (negative)

[2] In a case where the defendant of the council of occupants' representatives of apartment houses visited the director's office to oppose the duties of the director's office Gap in order to oppose the director's performance of the duties of the director's office Gap, and "I am am am am am am am am son" and "I am am am am am am", the case holding that the defendant's statement does not constitute an insulting speech that could objectively undermine the other party's social evaluation of the value of personality, although it is an inevitable and indecent expression that does not correspond to an insulting speech that could harm

[1] The offense of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act is an offense, the legal interest of which is an external reputation, which means a social evaluation of a person’s value, and refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment, which is likely to undermine a person’s social evaluation without mentioning a fact. Therefore, if a certain expression is not likely to undermine the other party’s social evaluation of the other party’s personal value, it cannot be deemed as an element of the offense of insult even if the expression was expressed in a somewhat unusual manner.

[2] The case holding that, in case where the defendant's council of occupants' representatives of apartment houses visited the head of the management office to oppose Gap's external special audit by the auditor of the management office, "I am to am to am to am to am to am to am to son," and "I am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to", in light of the relation between the defendant and Gap in light of the relation between the defendant, the circumstance and the situation of the defendant's am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to

[1] Article 311 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 311 of the Criminal Code, Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Do739 delivered on May 12, 1987 (Gong1987, 1018) Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3972 Delivered on November 28, 2003 (Gong2004Sang, 84) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8917 Delivered on December 11, 2008 (Gong2009Sang, 69)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Sung-hoon

Suwon District Court Decision 2014No2118 decided January 29, 2015

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The offense of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act is an offense, the legal interest of which is protected by the law, which means a social evaluation of a person’s value. The offense of insult as referred to in the offense of insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment which is likely to undermine a person’s social evaluation without mentioning a fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do739, May 12, 1987; 2003Do3972, Nov. 28, 2003). Therefore, if a certain expression is not likely to undermine the other party’s social evaluation of the other party’s personal value, even if such expression was expressed by a somewhat exceptional method, it does not constitute the element of the offense of insult.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted, at the time of the instant facts charged, the Defendant visited the head of the apartment management office in order to resist the Nonindicted Party’s external special audit by the auditor of the council of occupants’ representatives at the time of the instant facts charged, and the Defendant and the Nonindicted Party were in dispute in that place with the method of handling the affairs. In that process, the Defendant stated that “I am, I am, I am, I am, I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am.” The Defendant was only the Defendant and the Nonindicted Party who was in the office of the head of the management office at the time, but there was a door to the head of the management office outside the office of the management office, and 4-5 staff was working

In light of such facts and records, the relationship between the Defendant and the Nonindicted Party, the circumstance and frequency of the Defendant’s remarks, the meaning and context of the remarks, the place where the remarks were made and the circumstances before and after the remarks, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s above remarks constitute an indecent and indecent speech that could objectively undermine the other party’s social evaluation of the personal value of the Nonindicted Party.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s above remarks constitute insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act only for the reasons indicated in its holding. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the meaning of insult under the Criminal Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)