Sergeant Using Profanity Against Superior in Public Place, Supreme Court Rules "It Constitutes Defamation"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that using abusive language to refer to a superior in a public place constitutes the crime of insult.

On the 12th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Lee Gitaek) announced that it upheld the lower court's guilty verdict in the appeal trial of Mr. A, who was charged with insulting a superior under the Military Criminal Act.

Mr. A, who was serving as an Army Corporal, was tried for allegedly using abusive language to refer to Headquarters Duty Officer B and Administrative Supply Officer C at the outpatient clinic of the Armed Forces Hospital, his duty station, in June 2018. It was investigated that Mr. A loudly expressed dissatisfaction with the instructions of B and C for about 10 minutes while talking with a subordinate.

Article 64, Paragraph 2 of the Military Criminal Act stipulates that if a superior is insulted publicly by posting writings or pictures or by giving a speech, the offender shall be punished by imprisonment or detention for up to three years. Even if the place does not have the presence of the superior, insulting a superior publicly can still be punishable.

The first trial court acquitted Mr. A, stating that although he expressed dissatisfaction with the superior's instructions in a vulgar manner, it was difficult to see that he made expressions that lowered the personal dignity of the superior.

However, the second trial court found that Mr. A's remarks, referring to B and C, constituted the 'insult' under the crime of insulting a superior and gave Mr. A a suspended sentence. A suspended sentence is a guilty verdict where the sentence is not pronounced for a certain period, and if no further offenses occur, the prosecution is considered dismissed.

The court also noted that the place where Mr. A used abusive language was the outpatient clinic, which is frequented by other unit officers, meaning many people could hear it. This satisfied the 'publicity' requirement of the crime of insulting a superior. The Supreme Court dismissed Mr. A's appeal, stating there was no error in the lower court's judgment.

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