Assistance from the Ansan Law Office | Assisting a Client Who Insulted a Superior Officer to Obtain a Decision Not to Prosecute

The client was a private who was reported for insulting a staff sergeant.

The person who reported the client was the client's junior service member.

The junior service member stated that the client had insulted the staff sergeant in the smoking room by referring to her as a "fool" in front of a corporal, and that the client had repeatedly made remarks sexually insulting toward the staff sergeant, who was a woman.

As a result, the client was charged with insulting a superior officer and was referred to the military prosecution.

Fearful of punishment under the Military Criminal Act, the client requested assistance from the Ansan law office to defend against punishment.

The Ansan law office explained the offense of 🔗insulting a superior officer under the Military Criminal Act.

Insulting a superior officer is provided for in the Military Criminal Act, so it differs from ordinary insult.

■ Insult under the Criminal Act: imprisonment with or without labor for not more than one year or a fine of not more than 2 million won

■ Insult of a superior officer under the Military Criminal Act: imprisonment with or without labor for not more than two years

As shown, the offense of insulting a superior officer under the Military Criminal Act has no separate fine penalty.

※ Elements of the offense of insulting a superior officer

1. The act of insulting a superior officer (a person holding command authority in a relationship of command and obedience)

2. The establishment of public conduct (punishable even without public conduct if spoken in the presence of the superior officer)

3. If a superior officer is insulted by displaying a document, drawing, or effigy, or by a speech or other public means

*If you would like to have the details reviewed, please obtain a 🔗legal consultation with an attorney.

After grasping the circumstances of the client's case at the Ansan law office, the attorney identified the key issues relevant to the case.

The client denied the facts, stating that he had never insulted anyone.

The attorney therefore examined the statements of the complainant and the witness and worked to establish that these statements were not key evidence.

The client never directed sexual abuse at the staff sergeant.

The Ansan law office argued that the client had not insulted a superior officer and that, because sexual abuse does not constitute insulting a superior officer, the charge could not be recognized.

The witness, who was also the initial complainant, made the report only after six months had passed.

The Ansan law office emphasized that the date and time of the incident described by the witness were not specific and that, given the long period that had passed, the witness's memory might be distorted.

The superior officer's nickname was "Fool Brother," a nickname given by the soldiers.

The Ansan law office argued that the client was likewise on close terms with the staff sergeant and had made the remark out of affection, not with any intent to insult.