Supreme Court: "'A Thug Supports Another Thug' Comment Is Not Criminal Insult"

Fine of 500,000 Won in Lower Courts, Sent Back by Supreme Court
"Caution Needed in Applying Insult Law Standards"

The Supreme Court has ruled that a critical comment beneath a news article about a public figure declaring support for a presidential candidate cannot be punished as criminal insult unless it uses hate speech to the extent that it severely degrades the person's dignity.

Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

According to the legal community on August 28, the Supreme Court’s second panel (presiding justice: Kwon Youngjun) recently overturned a lower court ruling that fined Mr. A 500,000 won for insult and sent the case back to the Jeju District Court for retrial.

Mr. A was indicted for posting a comment, "Is it really newsworthy that a thug supports another thug?" below a news article on an internet portal page from home on February 5, 2022. The article in question reported that Shin Daecheol, leader of the band Sinawe, had publicly announced his support for then-presidential candidate Lee Jaemyung.

The key issue was whether Mr. A's comment constituted an insult. According to Article 311 of the Criminal Act, insult is defined as an abstract judgment or the expression of contemptuous feelings that infringe upon another person’s external reputation.

The court of first instance sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 500,000 won on July 1, 2023. The appellate court also dismissed Mr. A’s appeal in September of the same year.

However, the Supreme Court did not uphold these rulings. The bench emphasized that it is necessary to consider the content and nature of the article, the circumstances under which Mr. A posted the comment, the overall context, manner, meaning, and degree of the comment, the victim’s status as a public figure, and the role of the online news comment section as a space for political discourse.

The court stated, "This particular comment appears closer to a somewhat coarse expression of the defendant’s negative or critical opinion or sentiment toward the victim's stated support for a presidential candidate and the ensuing news coverage, rather than a hateful statement that is likely to seriously infringe on individual dignity or to degrade and humiliate the other party."

The court added, "Caution is warranted in applying the criminal law of insult and exercising the state's punitive authority to expressions of this nature."

The bench further ruled that caution should be exercised when intervening with state criminal sanctions—the ultimate and supplementary regulatory measure—even in instances where expression merely amounts to a brief outpouring of emotion.

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