Response under the Military Criminal Act | Client Suspected of Insulting a Superior Officer, a Case Concluded with a Suspension of Sentencing

The client suspected of violating the Military Criminal Act was a soldier serving as a maintenance specialist.

Feeling displeased and harboring a grudge because a staff sergeant, his superior, had made a joke, the client publicly insulted that superior by hurling profanities in front of fellow soldiers within the same barracks.

Afterward, in the battery barracks as well, he made remarks that a squad leader was sexually promiscuous, and he continued to make insulting remarks about another superior in a situation where others were listening.

Through this series of acts, the client was indicted for the crime of insulting a superior officer under the Military Criminal Act, and because the statutory penalty for that crime is prescribed only as imprisonment with or without labor, there was a situation in which the possibility of an actual custodial sentence was raised.

In a case of insulting a superior officer under the Military Criminal Act, how, and with what mitigating grounds, one persuades the court at the sentencing stage, rather than a simple dispute over the facts, determines the level of punishment.

1. Preparation of sentencing materials to prove first-time offender status and remorse

The military criminal law specialist attorney systematically submitted a letter of apology, a petition, and work performance evaluations in order to emphasize that the client was a first-time offender with no prior record of criminal punishment and that he was deeply remorseful about the case.

Taking the points that the case had occurred impulsively and that it was an emotional reaction as the focus of persuasion, the attorney emphasized the possibility of rehabilitation of the client's character.

2. Settlement with the victims and a deposit measure

Through direct communication with the victims, the military criminal law specialist attorney confirmed their intention not to seek punishment, and for the remaining victim, conveyed the client's sincerity through a deposit with an official depository.

Through this, the attorney explained to the court that the client had not stopped at mere remorse but had taken active follow-up measures.

3. Design of a suspension-of-sentencing strategy and persuasion

Considering the characteristics of the crime of insulting a superior officer, for which a fine is not possible, the military criminal law specialist attorney structured the strategy in a direction that would minimize the client's future disadvantages through a suspension of sentencing.

The attorney persuaded the court by emphasizing that it was preferable to give the client an opportunity for self-reflection rather than an actual custodial sentence.

As a result of the case under the Military Criminal Act,

the court, comprehensively considering the fact that the client had made the remarks impulsively out of emotion, that he had faithfully carried out the settlement with and deposit for the victims, and that he was a first-time offender, decided on a 'suspension of sentencing' without imposing a sentence of imprisonment.

As a result, the client was able to conclude the case without not only an actual custodial sentence but also a suspended sentence, and to minimize disadvantages to his return to society and career path after discharge.