The Supreme Court ruled that calling the apartment resident representative chair "son of a b—" in a KakaoTalk group chat of apartment residents does not constitute the crime of insult under the Criminal Act. The ruling said it cannot be seen as insult when considering the context, including that the resident representative chair first compared the women's association president to Choi Seo-won (formerly known as Choi Soon-sil) in a negative way and filed complaints against residents.
The Supreme Court's Third Division (presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) said on the 14th that on June 24 it overturned the lower court ruling that fined a person surnamed Moon (67) 300,000 won for insult and remanded the case to the Seoul Northern District Court with instructions to acquit.
Moon, who lives in an apartment in Nowon District, Seoul, learned in April 2022 that A, the apartment resident representative chair, had sent a text message to building representatives describing the women's association president as a bad person by likening her to Choi Seo-won.
Angered, Moon wrote in a KakaoTalk group chat with many apartment complex residents, referring to A, "A person like this fabricates rumors. And there are KakaoTalk messages going around saying the women's association president is worse than Choi Soon-sil. The son of a b— wrote…"
The trial court found Moon guilty and fined Moon 300,000 won. Moon appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal. Moon's side argued during the trial that the target of the criticism could be seen as a management office employee rather than A, but the court did not accept the claim.
The appellate court said, "Given the content of the message in this case, 'son of a b—' refers to the person who wrote on KakaoTalk that the women's association president is worse than Choi Seo-won," adding, "A sent a message to the effect that the women's association president did something 'comparable to the state capture scandal.' It can be seen that Moon was referring to A in the message."
The Supreme Court, however, found that the content of the message Moon posted in the KakaoTalk group chat of apartment residents, by itself, does not constitute insult.
The Supreme Court said Article 311 of the Criminal Act, insult, is a crime that protects "external honor," meaning society's assessment of a person's dignity. It added, "Whether an expression constitutes insult under the insult provision must be judged strictly in light of the parties' relationship, the circumstances leading to the expression, the manner of expression, and the situation at the time, rather than whether the other party's personal feelings were hurt or the person felt bad."
The Supreme Court noted that A, the apartment resident representative chair, had filed complaints against residents, and that around the time Moon posted the message in the group chat, many posts expressing strong dissatisfaction with A's complaints were uploaded.
It continued, "The message in this case was a simple curse pointing out the inappropriateness of A's negative expression about the women's association president or expressing discomfort," and "it is hard to see it as an insult that would objectively lower society's assessment of the victim's dignity."