Series Order
Part 1 | Unpaid Corporate Transactions: Liability Behind the Veil
Part 2 | Trade Name Continuity and the Liability of a Successor
Part 3 | Directors’ Liability for Damages
Part 4 | The Person Behind the Company Name
Part 5 | The Limits of Self-Defense in Assault Cases
Part 6 | Criminal Settlement Money: How Much Is Appropriate?
Part 7 | Can Quasi-Rape Be Established If One Has No Memory After Drinking?
Part 8 | Freelancers and Severance Pay: What Courts Really Examine
Part 9 | Assignment of Receivables for Business Financing
Part 10 | Can You Get Divorced If Your Foreign Spouse Disappears?
Part 11 | Can a Tenant Terminate a Lease if Repairs Are Refused?
Part 12 | Can a Subcontractor Recover Payment if the Main Contractor Disappears?
Part 13 | What You Must Know Before Your First Police Interview
Part 14 | Can a Real Estate Contract in a Land Transaction Permit Zone Be Cancelled Before Government Approval?
Part 15 | Is It Trespass to Enter Another Person's Home by Concealing Criminal Intent?
Part 16 | Impersonating Someone by Creating an Instagram Account Can Also Be a Criminal Offense
Part 17 | When Does an Indecent Act Become a Crime?
Part 18 | When a Water Leak Requires Repairs, Can the Tenant Decide the Repair Method?
Part 19 | How Far Does a Licensed Real Estate Agent’s Duty to Explain Extend?
Part 20 | Does Swearing in a Residential Area Constitute Criminal Insult?
By Hong Seung-kwon, Principal Attorney, PAN Law Firm (skh@law-pan.com)
Disputes between neighbors escalate into criminal cases more often than one might expect. Minor conflicts over noise between floors, parking or waste disposal can lead to raised voices and verbal abuse, sometimes resulting in a criminal complaint for insult.
However, using abusive language toward another person does not automatically constitute the criminal offense of insult. Article 311 of South Korea’s Criminal Act does not punish every insulting act; it applies when a person publicly insults another. Even when an expression is sufficiently offensive to damage someone’s social reputation, the separate element of public exposure must also be established.
The Supreme Court defines this element as a condition in which an unspecified person or a large number of people could perceive the remarks. The insult does not necessarily have to be delivered before a crowd. Even if only one or two people heard it, the requirement may be satisfied when there was an objectively recognizable possibility that the remarks could spread to an unspecified or broader group.
What, then, happens when someone shouts insults in a residential alley?
At first glance, the public-exposure element may appear easy to establish. Residential neighborhoods are occupied by many people, and their alleys are generally open to anyone. It is therefore tempting to assume that someone must have heard a person shouting abuse in such a setting. Courts, however, must approach cautiously whether that assumption alone is sufficient.
Court decisions recognizing the public nature of insults made in residential neighborhoods or apartment complexes have not been based solely on where the remarks were made. In those cases, the possibility that someone might have overheard the abuse was accompanied by evidence that a third party had actually heard it.
From a similar perspective, courts have declined to recognize the public-exposure element in cases involving insults shouted at a neighbor in a residential alley. In one such case, the location was surrounded by multi-family homes and residents could potentially have heard the shouting. Yet the time and season of the incident, together with the condition of nearby homes, made it difficult to conclude that residents had actually heard the substance of the remarks. Most importantly, there was no specific evidence that anyone other than the alleged victim had been present or had heard the abuse.
In an insult case arising in a residential area, the location alone is therefore insufficient. Other circumstances must also be examined, including whether pedestrians were nearby, how far the surrounding homes were from the scene, whether windows were open, how loudly the words were spoken and whether any third party can testify to having heard them.
The mere fact that someone used abusive language in a residential neighborhood does not automatically satisfy the public-exposure element of criminal insult. Courts must therefore exercise caution when determining whether that requirement has been met.
About the Author
Hong Seung-kwon is a principal attorney at PAN Law Firm who handles a wide range of legal matters, including civil and criminal litigation and legal issues emerging in the digital age. Hong continuously analyzes how technological innovation, the legal order governing property rights and changes in regulatory policy affect the law and market order.
