Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Repeated union banners, insult and the limits of justified conduct
Supreme Court, Sept. 9, 2021, 2016Do88 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 모욕
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a defendants' fellow trade union leader was labelled with contemptuous terms on banners and pickets repeatedly posted for a long time at busy roadsides, was that conduct an act not in breach of social norms under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, so that its wrongfulness was excused?
Holding
It was not. The words the defendants used mean, one, a person who for his own gain attaches himself to those in power and acts without backbone, and, two, a person who serves as an informer at another's bidding; they are not always insults to the person named and are not always impermissible when social norms are considered. Weighing all the circumstances of the repeated, long-term posting of the banners and pickets at busy roadsides, the Court held that the conduct was an insulting expression about the victim and was not outside the breach of social norms, and dismissed all the appeals.
Points at issue, verbatim
제반 사정에 비추어 피고인들의 위 행위는 갑에 대한 모욕적 표현으로서 사회상규에 위배되지 않는 행위로 보기 어렵다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
a case holding that, in light of all the circumstances, the defendants' above act is difficult to regard as an act that does not violate social norms as an insulting expression against A
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이와 같은 정당행위를 인정하려면, 첫째 그 행위의 동기나 목적의 정당성, 둘째 행위의 수단이나 방법의 상당성, 셋째 보호이익과 침해이익과의 법익균형성, 넷째 긴급성, 다섯째 그 행위 외에 다른 수단이나 방법이 없다는 보충성 등의 요건을 갖추어야 한다
Unofficial English translation
In order to recognize such a justifiable act, the requirements must be satisfied of, first, the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, second, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, third, the balance between the interest protected and the interest infringed, fourth, urgency, and fifth, supplementarity, that there is no other means or method besides the act
Factors
- ‘어용’이란 자신의 이익을 위하여 권력자나 권력 기관에 영합하여 줏대 없이 행동하는 것을 낮잡아 이르는 말, ‘앞잡이’란 남의 사주를 받고 끄나풀 노릇을 하는 사람을 뜻하는 말로서
- 언제나 위 표현들이 지칭된 상대방에 대한 모욕에 해당한다거나 사회상규에 비추어 허용되지 않는 것은 아니지만
- 현수막, 피켓 등을 장기간 반복하여 일반인의 왕래가 잦은 도로변 등에 게시한 사안에서
- 제반 사정에 비추어 피고인들의 위 행위는 갑에 대한 모욕적 표현으로서 사회상규에 위배되지 않는 행위로 보기 어렵다고
Unofficial English translation
• 'eoyong' means a word disparaging acting spinelessly by currying favor with persons or institutions of power for one's own benefit, and 'apjabi' means a word referring to a person who acts as a lackey at the instigation of another, and
• although these expressions do not always constitute an insult to the person they refer to or always fail to be permitted in light of social norms,
• in a case where banners, pickets, and the like were posted repeatedly over a long period on roadsides and elsewhere frequently passed by the general public
• in light of all the circumstances, the defendants' above act is difficult to regard as an act that does not violate social norms as an insulting expression against A
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2002. 12. 26. 선고 2002도5077 판결, 대법원 2006. 4. 27. 선고 2003도4151 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5077 decided December 26, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4151 decided April 27, 2006
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2002. 12. 26. 선고 2002도5077 판결(공2003상, 555), 대법원 2003. 11. 28. 선고 2003도3972 판결(공2004상, 84), 대법원 2006. 4. 27. 선고 2003도4151 판결(공2006상, 975), 대법원 2008. 2. 28. 선고 2007도9411 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How much weight do repetition and the length of time a label is displayed carry against the five requirements of justified conduct when the expression is political criticism of a trade union leader?
A later Supreme Court decision that weighs repetition and location differently against the five requirements of justified conduct, or an amendment to Article 20 or Article 311 of the Criminal Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary frames the analysis as setting out the five requirements of justified conduct, while the independent reads it as applying the facts directly; both reach the same conclusion from the same circumstances.
제반 사정에 비추어 피고인들의 위 행위는 갑에 대한 모욕적 표현으로서 사회상규에 위배되지 않는 행위로 보기 어렵다고 한 사례Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How much weight do repetition and the length of time a label is displayed carry against the five requirements of justified conduct when the expression is political criticism of a trade union leader?” vs Independent “Under what circumstances would using the same expressions in a limited communication within the union qualify as justified criticism?”
The primary asks how much weight repetition and duration carry against the five requirements for political criticism of a union leader, while the independent asks when the same expressions used within a union's limited internal communication could count as justified criticism.
제반 사정에 비추어 피고인들의 위 행위는 갑에 대한 모욕적 표현으로서 사회상규에 위배되지 않는 행위로 보기 어렵다고 한 사례Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 11 December 2015 (2015No3683), kept the first-instance conviction. It held that the banners and pickets by which the defendants called the victim words meaning a collaborator and an informer, posted at roadsides where the public passed frequently, were not conduct outside social norms, and rejected the appeal grounds asserting justified conduct under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the law it set out and the lawfully admitted evidence, it held that the finding that the conduct was not outside social norms was sound, that there was no misapprehension of the law on justified conduct or any other defect, and dismissed all the appeals by the unanimous agreement of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A statement resting on an objectively reasonable factual basis, where only partially insulting words were used while setting out one's own view of the facts and the stance the victim took, unless there are special circumstances.
- A posting that was neither repeated nor kept up for a long time, so that the circumstances the court below relied on are absent.
- Conduct that meets all the requirements of justified conduct: legitimacy of motive or purpose, propriety of means, balance of the interests protected and infringed, emergency, and subsidiarity.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the points the Court named: how long and how often the banners and pickets were posted, where they stood and who passed by, since the Court relied on repetition over a long period at busy roadsides. Then ask whether the expressions rest on an objectively reasonable factual basis, and whether the five requirements of justified conduct are made out, as the Court took them from its earlier decisions.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 형법 제20조에서 정한 ‘사회상규에 위배되지 아니하는 행위’의 의미 및 정당행위의 성립 요건 / 어떤 글이나 발언이 모욕적 표현을 담고 있더라도 사회상규에 위배되지 않는 행위로서 위법성이 조각될 수 있는 경우 [2] 피고인들이 소속 노동조합 위원장 갑을 ‘어용’, ‘앞잡이’ 등으로 지칭하여 표현한 현수막, 피켓 등을 장기간 반복하여 일반인의 왕래가 잦은 도로변 등에 게시한 사안에서, ‘어용’이란 자신의 이익을 위하여 권력자나 권력 기관에 영합하여 줏대 없이 행동하는 것을 낮잡아 이르는 말, ‘앞잡이’란 남의 사주를 받고 끄나풀 노릇을 하는 사람을 뜻하는 말로서 언제나 위 표현들이 지칭된 상대방에 대한 모욕에 해당한다거나 사회상규에 비추어 허용되지 않는 것은 아니지만, 제반 사정에 비추어 피고인들의 위 행위는 갑에 대한 모욕적 표현으로서 사회상규에 위배되지 않는 행위로 보기 어렵다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of 'acts that do not violate social norms' prescribed in Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and the requirements for the establishment of a justifiable act / The cases in which, even where a piece of writing or a remark contains insulting expressions, it is an act that does not violate social norms and unlawfulness may be excluded [2] In a case where the defendants repeatedly posted, over a long period, banners, pickets, and the like on the roadside and elsewhere frequently passed by the general public, referring to A, the chair of the labor union to which they belonged, as 'eoyong' (a lackey of those in power) and 'apjabi' (a stooge), a case holding that, although 'eoyong' is a word disparaging acting spinelessly by currying favor with persons or institutions of power for one's own benefit, and 'apjabi' is a word meaning a person who acts as a lackey at the instigation of another, and these expressions do not always constitute an insult to the person they refer to or always fail to be permitted in light of social norms, the defendants' above act, in light of all the circumstances, is difficult to regard as an act that does not violate social norms as an insulting expression against A
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제20조 [2] 형법 제20조, 제311조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger