Open Decision Ledger · Military criminal & justice law
A private squad leader as a superior in the offence of insulting a superior
Supreme Court, Mar. 11, 2021, 2018Do12270 (judgment)
Case name: 상관모욕
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a squad member insulted a squad leader who was also a private, in the face, is that squad leader a 'superior' within Article 64(1) of the Military Criminal Act, given that Article 2(i) defines a superior by the command-obedience relation and not by rank or order of precedence?
Holding
Yes. The offence of insulting a superior protects not only the superior's personal interests, such as reputation, but also the maintenance of the military hierarchy and chain of command. The command-obedience relation need not be concrete and actual; it means the superior-subordinate command line established by statute and regulation, and where a person holds command rights that person is a superior, whatever the rank or order of precedence, because a junior by duty may hold command rights. In unit command and management and in barracks life, the squad leader and squad member stand in that relation, so the squad leader has command rights over the squad member and is a superior, and this does not change although both are privates.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
군형법 제2조 제1호, 제64조 제1항, 국방부 부대관리훈령 제2조 제5호, 제4조, 제9조 제2항, 제17조 제1호, 제2호, 제18조 제1항, 육군규정 120 병영생활규정 제20조 제2항, 제43조 제1항, 제43조의2 등 제반 규정의 취지, 내용 등을 종합하면, 부대지휘 및 관리, 병영생활에 있어 분대장과 분대원은 명령복종 관계로서 분대장은 분대원에 대해 명령권을 가진 사람 즉 상관에 해당하고, 이는 분대장과 분대원이 모두 병이라 하더라도 달리 볼 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
In light of the purpose, content, and other aspects of the overall provisions, including Article 2, subparagraph 1 and Article 64 (1) of the Military Criminal Act, Article 2, subparagraph 5, Article 4, Article 9 (2), Article 17, subparagraphs 1 and 2, and Article 18 (1) of the Ministry of National Defense Regulation on Unit Management, and Article 20 (2), Article 43 (1), and Article 43-2 of Army Regulation 120, Barracks Life Regulation, in unit command and management and in barracks life, a squad leader and the squad members stand in a relationship of command and obedience, and the squad leader is a person having the power to command the squad members, that is, a superior officer, and even where both the squad leader and the squad members are enlisted soldiers, this cannot be regarded otherwise.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 공소외 1에 대한 상관모욕 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the insult to a superior officer of Non-indicted 1 is reversed, and the case in this part is remanded to the Suwon District Court. The remainder of the final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
‘명령복종 관계’는 구체적이고 현실적인 관계일 필요까지는 없으나 법령에 의거하여 설정된 상하의 지휘계통 관계를 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
A "relationship of command and obedience" need not be a concrete and actual relationship, but refers to a superior-subordinate chain of command established pursuant to statutes and regulations.
Factors
- 군 조직의 위계질서 및 통수체계 유지도 보호법익으로 한다
- 법령에 의거하여 설정된 상하의 지휘계통 관계를 말한다
- 명령복종의 관계에 있는지를 따져 명령권을 가지면 상관이고 이러한 경우 계급이나 서열은 문제가 되지 아니한다
- 군의 직무상 하급자가 명령권을 가질 수도 있기 때문이다
- 분대장은 분대원에 대해 명령권을 가진 사람 즉 상관에 해당하고
Unofficial English translation
• the maintenance of the hierarchical order and the chain of command of the military organization is also a protected legal interest
• it refers to a superior-subordinate chain of command established pursuant to statutes and regulations
• Whether a relationship of command and obedience exists is examined; if one has the power to command, one is a superior officer, and in such a case rank or order of seniority is not at issue
• because in the military, a subordinate may have the power to command by reason of duty
• the squad leader is a person having the power to command the squad members, that is, a superior officer, and
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2015. 9. 24. 선고 2015도11286 판결(공2015하, 1633)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11286 decided September 24, 2015 (Gong 2015 Ha, 1633)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2015. 9. 24. 선고 2015도11286 판결(공2015하, 1633), 헌법재판소 2016. 2. 25. 선고 2013헌바111 전원재판부 결정(헌공233, 339)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a private squad member insults a private squad leader, what conduct and what intent must be shown before the words amount to insult for the offence of insulting a superior?
The remand judgment of the Suwon District Court, once it decides whether the charged conduct was insult, will show how the rule is applied to a squad leader and squad member who are both privates. Any amendment to Article 2(i) or Article 64(1) of the Military Criminal Act, or a later decision on who is a superior, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where a private squad member insults a private squad leader, what conduct and what intent must be shown before the words amount to insult for the offence of insulting a superior?” vs Independent “Does a squad leader retain superior status in dealings with a squad member outside unit command, management, and barracks life?”
The primary asks what conduct and intent make the words an insult between privates, while the independent reading asks whether superior status persists outside unit command and barracks life.
군형법 제2조 제1호, 제64조 제1항, 국방부 부대관리훈령 제2조 제5호, 제4조, 제9조 제2항, 제17조 제1호, 제2호, 제18조 제1항, 육군규정 120 병영생활규정 제20조 제2항, 제43조 제1항, 제43조의2 등 제반 규정의 취지, 내용 등을 종합하면, 부대지휘 및 관리, 병영생활에 있어 분대장과 분대원은 명령복종 관계로서 분대장은 분대원에 대해 명령권을 가진 사람 즉 상관에 해당하고, 이는 분대장과 분대원이 모두 병이라 하더라도 달리 볼 수 없다.Raw 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 Suwon District Court, in its judgment of 9 July 2018 (2017No4615), kept the first-instance acquittal on the charge against non-prosecuted person 1. It reasoned that although the victim held the position of squad leader in the defendant's squad, a squad leader who was a private could not be treated as a superior for the offence of insulting a superior, so no conviction was possible. On the several charges against non-prosecuted person 2 it held, in acquitting, that it had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant insulted that victim or acted with the intent to insult.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held, following Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11286, that the offence protects the military hierarchy and chain of command as well as the superior's personal interests, and, following Constitutional Court Decision 2013HunBa111 of the Full Court, that the command-obedience relation turns on command rights and not on rank. A private squad leader who had been appointed squad leader by the company commander with effect from 1 September 2016 therefore stood as a superior over the defendant, a squad member, and both being privates made no difference. The court below had misread the law on who is a superior and, on that mistaken premise, had not examined or decided whether the conduct charged constituted insult, so that part was reversed and remanded. On the charges against non-prosecuted person 2 the Court found no error of logic, experience or law, and dismissed that part of the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case turning on a higher-ranking or higher-precedence person where no command-obedience relation exists, since Article 2(i) treats such a person only as one deemed a superior.
- A case in which the charged conduct is not shown to amount to insult, or in which the intent to insult is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, since the Court left that question open on remand.
- A case in which the victim had not in fact been appointed to lead the squad, since the Court relied on the appointment by the company commander with effect from 1 September 2016.
Record verification notes
Check the appointment or designation record that put the victim in command of the squad, and whether both soldiers were privates at the time of the conduct. Note that the rule decides only who is a superior: the court on remand must still decide whether the words used in the face amounted to insult with intent. Also compare the version of the Ministry of National Defense Unit Management Order and the Army Regulation 120 Barracks Life Regulation that governed the unit at the time.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 군형법 제64조 제1항에서 규정한 상관모욕죄의 보호법익 / 군형법 제2조 제1호에서 정한 ‘명령복종 관계’의 의미 및 상관인지 판단하는 기준 [2] 부대지휘 및 관리, 병영생활에서 분대장이 분대원의 상관에 해당하는지 여부(적극) 및 분대장과 분대원이 모두 병인 경우 달리 보아야 하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The protected legal interest of the crime of insulting a superior officer under Article 64 (1) of the Military Criminal Act / The meaning of the "relationship of command and obedience" as defined in Article 2, subparagraph 1 of the Military Criminal Act, and the criteria for determining whether one is a superior officer [2] Whether, in unit command and management and in barracks life, a squad leader corresponds to a superior officer of the squad members (affirmative), and whether a different view should be taken where both the squad leader and the squad members are enlisted soldiers (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 군형법 제64조 제1항은 "상관을 그 면전에서 모욕한 사람은 2년 이하의 징역이나 금고에 처한다."라고 규정하고, 제2조 제1호는 "‘상관’이란 명령복종 관계에서 명령권을 가진 사람을 말한다. 명령복종 관계가 없는 경우의 상위 계급자와 상위 서열자는 상관에 준한다."라고 규정하고 있다. 군형법 제64조 제1항에서 규정한 상관모욕죄는 상관의 명예 등의 개인적 법익뿐만 아니라 군 조직의 위계질서 및 통수체계 유지도 보호법익으로 한다. ‘명령복종 관계’는 구체적이고 현실적인 관계일 필요까지는 없으나 법령에 의거하여 설정된 상하의 지휘계통 관계를 말한다. 한편 명령복종의 관계에 있는지를 따져 명령권을 가지면 상관이고 이러한 경우 계급이나 서열은 문제가 되지 아니한다. 군의 직무상 하급자가 명령권을 가질 수도 있기 때문이다. [2] 군형법 제2조 제1호, 제64조 제1항, 국방부 부대관리훈령 제2조 제5호, 제4조, 제9조 제2항, 제17조 제1호, 제2호, 제18조 제1항, 육군규정 120 병영생활규정 제20조 제2항, 제43조 제1항, 제43조의2 등 제반 규정의 취지, 내용 등을 종합하면, 부대지휘 및 관리, 병영생활에 있어 분대장과 분대원은 명령복종 관계로서 분대장은 분대원에 대해 명령권을 가진 사람 즉 상관에 해당하고, 이는 분대장과 분대원이 모두 병이라 하더라도 달리 볼 수 없다.
Order
원심판결 중 공소외 1에 대한 상관모욕 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the insult to a superior officer of Non-indicted 1 is reversed, and the case in this part is remanded to the Suwon District Court. The remainder of the final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 군형법 제2조 제1호, 제64조 제1항 [2] 군형법 제2조 제1호, 제64조 제1항
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