"Uneducated Person" to Management Office Employee... Why Was the Resident Acquitted?

First Trial Ended in Fine, But Acquitted on Appeal

Appeals Court: "Publicity Not Recognized"

A man in his 40s who was fined in the first trial for verbally abusing a management office employee in front of others after complaining that there was no running water in his officetel has been acquitted on appeal.

According to Yonhap News on May 17, the Criminal Division 1 of the Changwon District Court overturned the lower court's decision that fined Mr. A, a man in his 40s, 1.5 million won for insult, and found him not guilty.

Changwon District Court, Gyeongnam. Photo by Se-ryung Lee

Mr. A was brought to trial on charges of insulting and verbally abusing Ms. B, who was in charge of accounting work, in the management office of an officetel in Uichang-gu, Changwon, Gyeongnam, on September 13, 2024, while others were present. At the time, Mr. A reportedly confronted Ms. B about the water not running in the officetel and said, "How can the management office staff behave so rudely toward residents?" and, "You uneducated person, let’s see what happens until you get fired." At that moment, Mr. C, an employee of a cleaning service company contracted to the officetel, was present.

The first trial court determined that Mr. A had committed the crime of insult because he used abusive language toward Ms. B in the presence of Mr. C, and imposed a fine. However, the appellate court reached a different conclusion. The appeals court found that the element of "publicity," required for the crime of insult, was not met. Publicity means that the act can be recognized by an unspecified or large number of people. Even if a fact is stated individually, if there is a possibility of it being spread to others, the requirement of publicity is considered met.

The appellate panel explained, "Mr. C, the only person who witnessed Mr. A using abusive language toward Ms. B, testified in the original court that 'I only responded to the police investigation and did not tell anyone else.' Also, as a cleaning contractor at the officetel, Mr. C referred to Ms. B as 'deputy director,'" highlighting their hierarchical relationship. Therefore, the court ruled that there was no possibility of the event being disseminated. The court added, "It is difficult to conclude that Mr. A insulted Ms. B 'publicly,' and there is no other evidence to support this," thus explaining the reason for the acquittal.

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