Elements of Insult | Non-Disposition Decision for a Juvenile Facing Punishment for Insult and Other Offenses

The client took part in an overseas exchange camp run by the school during the vacation.

The client was assigned to the same room as the victim in this case at the camp and spoke with the victim for the first time, and the client said that they had not originally known each other.

The client and the victim played a card game to build rapport, and as the victim kept losing the game, the victim swore at the client several times.

In response, the client told the victim to calm down, but the victim suddenly slapped the client's cheek, and to stop this the client grabbed the victim's collar.

However, the victim did not stop assaulting the client, and as the client swung an arm to get away from the victim, the client struck the victim's neck area, and the situation came to an end.

In filing this complaint, the victim claimed that the client continuously used abusive language during the game, satisfying the elements of the crime of insult.

The victim also said that the client pulled the victim's collar and tore the clothing, constituting destruction of property, and that the client struck the victim's neck and caused bleeding, thereby also satisfying the elements of the crime of infliction of bodily injury.

The victim thus filed a complaint against the client on a total of 3 charges.

The elements required to establish destruction of property are as follows.

If the elements of destruction of property are met, the offender is subject, under Article 366 of the Criminal Act, to imprisonment of up to 3 years or a fine of up to 7 million won.

The requirements for the establishment of the crime of 🔗bodily injury are as follows.

When the requirements for the crime of infliction of bodily injury are met, under Article 257 of the Criminal Act the offender is subject to imprisonment for not more than 7 years, suspension of qualifications for not more than 10 years, or a fine not exceeding 10 million won.

The client in this case was a youth under 14 years of age and was subject to juvenile protection proceedings.

When a youth aged 10 or older and under 19 commits an offense under the Criminal Act, the youth is subject to 🔗juvenile crime protective disposition.

Among these, a youth aged 14 or older and under 19 is classified as a juvenile offender, and if a serious offense is committed, criminal punishment rather than a protective disposition may be imposed.

The types of protective disposition are as follows.

In the case of a protective disposition, no criminal record remains, so it may be regarded lightly. However, the investigation history is recorded, so if an offense is committed later, the person may become subject to aggravated punishment, which requires caution.

In this case, it is true that the client, in the process of being subjected to abusive language and assault by the victim, uttered abusive language about twice in a moment of anger.

However, this was merely uttered momentarily in a situation of being subjected to abusive language and assault, and it was not a statement intended to lower the social evaluation of the victim's personal worth.

The specialized attorney, citing this point, argued that the client's abusive language was a momentary expression of anger used to express feelings of anger about the situation at the time, and thus did not meet the elements for establishing the crime of insult.

While being threatened by the victim, the client, in attempting to push the victim away, slipped and ended up grabbing the victim's collar.

The client grabbed the victim's collar for only a few seconds, however, and the clothing was not damaged.

The specialist attorney argued that even if the clothing had been damaged, it occurred in the course of the client defending himself to escape the victim's assault, and that the client had no intent to commit destruction of property.

The client sustained a fracture from being assaulted by the victim and received emergency treatment immediately after the incident occurred.

However, the victim did not complain of any pain and did not receive any hospital treatment.

To prove this, the specialized attorney submitted as evidence a video filmed by a teacher immediately after the incident occurred, and argued that the victim was carrying on daily life normally.

In addition, the specialized attorney emphasized, through the Office of Education, that the client’s conduct in the incident was recognized as self-defense permissible under social norms, and that the crime of infliction of bodily injury therefore could not be established against the client.