Abusive Language During Heated Noise Dispute... Supreme Court: "No Grounds for Criminal Insult"

"Cannot Be Deemed an Objective Diminishment of Social Reputation"

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Yonhap News Agency

The Supreme Court has ruled that using abusive language against another person during an argument does not objectively constitute an insult severe enough to lower one's social reputation.

On July 24, according to legal sources, the First Division of the Supreme Court (presiding judge Shin Sookhee) recently overturned the decision of a lower court that had fined individual A for insult, and remanded the case to the Daegu District Court.

On October 7, 2022, at approximately 11:30 p.m., A had a verbal argument with neighbor B over noise between floors in the hallway of an apartment building in Jung-gu, Daegu. A was subsequently tried on charges of using abusive language, specifically saying to B, "You XX bastard, you can’t even do X," in the presence of an apartment management office employee.

The key issue was whether abusive language exchanged during a personal dispute could be considered criminal insult. The court of first instance found A guilty and imposed a fine of 1 million won. The appellate court upheld the conviction as well. The lower court pointed out that the incident took place in an apartment hallway where many residents live, at a late hour when most would be at home. The presence of a management office employee was cited as sufficient proof of publicity, meaning the abusive language was likely to be transmitted to others.

However, the Supreme Court refused to accept this reasoning, stating that the meaning of "insult" under criminal law must be interpreted strictly. The bench stated, "Whether a specific expression constitutes an insult should not be based on whether it hurts the subjective feelings or emotional honor of the individual; rather, it should be evaluated strictly according to objective circumstances, based on whether the expression damages the person's reputation in the eyes of others."

The court further explained, "In this case, the defendant's remarks were simply abusive language made in a state of agitation, expressing negative feelings toward the victim, and amounted only to statements that could hurt the victim's subjective feelings."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.