Insult | Charged with Insulting an Academy Instructor but Received a Non-Prosecution Decision

The client, who had been accused of insult and online defamation under the Network Act, was a student attending a computer academy and had a minor conflict with A, an instructor at the academy.

The client, who was dissatisfied that A frequently talked about politicians during class, expressed this dissatisfaction emotionally in a KakaoTalk group chat that the academy students shared.

In the course of this, the client sent messages referring to A to the effect of “Is he really a teacher? He seems like a fraudster,” and also posted an image that composited A’s face onto a photo of a politician in the group chat.

In response, A claimed that he had been ridiculed in front of several students and filed a criminal complaint against the client for insult and violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (defamation).

The investigative authorities confirmed the fact of the statements and the image posting and referred the case to the prosecutors’ office.

The client felt this was unfair, given that an emotional expression had led to criminal punishment, and requested assistance from an attorney specializing in criminal matters.

The attorney specializing in criminal matters approached this case by specifically dividing its issues into “whether the expression could lower social evaluation as an insult” and “whether the statement constituted a statement of fact for defamation.”

After comprehensively reviewing the reasoning and evidence presented by the attorney specializing in criminal matters, the prosecution determined that it was difficult to regard the client’s conduct as an “insulting expression” under generally accepted social norms.

Accordingly, the prosecution rendered a decision of non-prosecution (no suspicion of crime) regarding the client.

If you are under suspicion of insult or online defamation under the Network Act, you should respond as follows.

1. Present the context and setting of the expression in concrete terms.
For private chat rooms such as KakaoTalk or social media, it is important to emphasize that the element of publicity (public exposure) is weak.

2. Clarify the intent and emotional background of the statement.
If the expression is permitted under generally accepted social norms, such as satire, humor, or the venting of dissatisfaction, the crime is difficult to establish.

3. Distinguish whether a fact was stated.
Expressions such as “seems like a fraudster” or “makes no sense” are subjective judgments and do not constitute defamation.

4. Build a defense rooted in precedent.
Supreme Court precedents have consistently held that minor profanity or critical opinions are difficult to regard as the crime of insult.

5. Early response with the assistance of a criminal defense attorney is important.
At the early investigation stage, the purport and context of the statement and the scope of the chat room participants should be clearly stated.

For the crimes of insult and defamation, the court comprehensively assesses the social context and intent of the statement.

Therefore, establishing the direction of statements with the assistance of a criminal defense attorney from the early stage of the investigation is central to resolving the case.

If you require legal assistance in a related matter, you may respond through a 🔗consultation booking with a criminal defense attorney of this firm.