Skip to content
New Era Korea Daily

Supreme Court rules impulsive expletives do not constitute criminal insult

The court acquitted a hospital executive who shouted an obscenity at a protester, establishing that spontaneous anger-driven speech lacks the intent to damage social reputation required for conviction.

By New Era Daily AIAI-writtenPublished
Illustration: Supreme Court rules impulsive expletives do not constitute criminal insult
Courts, legislation and legal rulings Illustration: New Era Korea Daily · AI-generated

The Supreme Court on May 29 acquitted a hospital executive convicted of shouting an obscenity at a protester, ruling that impulsive expletives in the heat of an argument do not constitute criminal insult unless they objectively damage a person's social reputation. The high court determined the remark was a momentary expression of anger rather than an attempt to degrade the victim's standing in society.

The case involved a managing director at Hospital A who engaged in a verbal altercation with Person B conducting a one-person protest near the entrance. As passersby watched, the director loudly called Person B "Hey, you son of a bitch" after Person B repeatedly shouted at him. Lower courts had found the director guilty, but the Supreme Court overturned the verdict, citing a misinterpretation of the legal definition of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act.

In its decision, the court clarified that the crime of insult protects external honor—a person's social evaluation of their value—rather than internal feelings of humiliation. Judges must assess whether a statement objectively harms this reputation by considering the relationship between the parties, the context, and the manner of expression, rather than relying solely on the listener's subjective emotions. The bench noted that rude comments expressing negative opinions or minor abstract judgments generally fall outside the scope of criminal liability.

The ruling emphasized that expressions stemming from dissatisfaction or rage, particularly those that are sporadic or impromptu, should not be categorized as criminal insults even if they hurt the recipient's feelings. Such utterances are better addressed through civil liability or social self-regulation unless they involve hate speech based on gender, race, ethnicity, disability, region of origin, or sexual orientation. The court concluded the director's outburst was a reflexive reaction to Person B's behavior and did not amount to an act intended to lower Person B's social worth.

What this article is based on

Every fact in this article can be checked against the primary documents below.

  1. Court ruling대법원 대법원 판결· Supreme Court· accessed Sept. 10, 2026
  2. Court ruling판결 핵심· scourt.go.kr· accessed Sept. 10, 2026

© New Era Korea Daily. All rights reserved.