Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
A mild abstract expression held not to infringe external reputation
Supreme Court, Jan. 29, 2026, 2023Do8410 (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 defendant twice told apartment residents that the victim was the 'X-man' inside the residents' emergency committee and that the victim was the construction company's 'X-man', did those expressions infringe the victim's external reputation so as to constitute the offence of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act?
Holding
No. The Supreme Court held that 'X-man' is a mild abstract expression, used often in everyday life and the media, which merely mocks a person inside an organisation for helping the opposing side. Taken with the parties' positions and relationship and the motive and course that led to the statements, the two statements only raised suspicions on objectively disclosed premise facts and showed negative or critical opinions, so they did not warrant the finding that the victim's external reputation was infringed; the court below had misread the meaning of 'insult' under the Criminal Act.
Points at issue, verbatim
피고인의 발언은 객관적으로 드러난 일정한 전제사실을 기초로 갑의 행위와 처신 등에 대해 의혹을 제기하고 갑에 대한 부정적·비판적 의견이나 감정을 나타내면서 경미한 수준의 추상적 표현을 사용한 것으로 보일 뿐, 객관적으로 갑의 외부적 명예를 침해할 만한 모욕행위에 해당하지 않는다는
Unofficial English translation
the defendant's statements appear merely to raise suspicions as to A's conduct and behavior based on certain premises objectively revealed and to express negative or critical opinions or feelings toward A while using an abstract expression of a mild level, and thus cannot be regarded as insulting conduct that objectively infringes upon A's external honor
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 유죄 부분(이유 공소기각 부분 포함)을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
Reverses the guilty part of the judgment of the court below (including the part concerning the dismissal of prosecution in the reasoning) and remands this part of the case to the Incheon District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
발언에 이르게 된 동기나 경위 등 제반 사정을 종합하면
Unofficial English translation
all circumstances such as the motive or circumstances that led to the statement
Factors
- ‘X맨’이라는 표현은 조직 내부에서 반대세력을 돕는 사람을 비꼬는 정도의 의미로 일상생활이나 언론 등에서 자주 거론되며 비교적 가볍게 사용되는 추상적 표현인 점을 비롯하여
- 피고인, 갑, 상대방의 지위와 관계
- 발언에 이르게 된 동기나 경위 등 제반 사정을 종합하면
Unofficial English translation
• the fact that, among others, the expression 'X-man' is an abstract expression that is frequently mentioned in daily life or the media and used in a relatively light sense to mock a person within an organization who assists the opposing faction
• the status of and relationship among the defendant, A and the counterparty
• all circumstances such as the motive or circumstances that led to the statement
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2015. 9. 10. 선고 2015도2229 판결(공2015하, 1571), 대법원 2022. 8. 31. 선고 2019도7370 판결(공2022하, 2066)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2229 decided September 10, 2015 (Gong 2015 Ha, 1571), Supreme Court Decision 2019Do7370 decided August 31, 2022 (Gong 2022 Ha, 2066)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2015. 9. 10. 선고 2015도2229 판결(공2015하, 1571), 대법원 2022. 8. 31. 선고 2019도7370 판결(공2022하, 2066)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How often, and over what period, must the same mild abstract expression be repeated before it can no longer be treated as a mild abstract expression showing criticism?
The judgment of the Incheon District Court on remand, which must hear and decide the case again on the two statements, will show how the criteria are applied to this record. A later Supreme Court decision altering the test for insult, or an amendment to 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) · 2026-10-24
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 “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The issues both describe consideration of all relevant circumstances and apply that assessment to the particular statements, allowing emphasis on either holistic evaluation or case application.
피고인의 발언은 객관적으로 드러난 일정한 전제사실을 기초로 갑의 행위와 처신 등에 대해 의혹을 제기하고 갑에 대한 부정적·비판적 의견이나 감정을 나타내면서 경미한 수준의 추상적 표현을 사용한 것으로 보일 뿐, 객관적으로 갑의 외부적 명예를 침해할 만한 모욕행위에 해당하지 않는다는 이유로Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How often, and over what period, must the same mild abstract expression be repeated before it can no longer be treated as a mild abstract expression showing criticism?” vs Independent “Under what different circumstances could describing someone as an "X-man" impair external reputation sufficiently to constitute criminal insult?”
The primary asks specifically about the frequency and duration of repetition, whereas the independent asks generally what changed circumstances could make the expression criminally insulting.
피고인의 발언은 객관적으로 드러난 일정한 전제사실을 기초로 갑의 행위와 처신 등에 대해 의혹을 제기하고 갑에 대한 부정적·비판적 의견이나 감정을 나타내면서 경미한 수준의 추상적 표현을 사용한 것으로 보일 뿐, 객관적으로 갑의 외부적 명예를 침해할 만한 모욕행위에 해당하지 않는다는Raw 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 Incheon District Court, in its judgment of 2 June 2023 (2022No668), held that the victim's complaint was made within six months of learning the offender's identity and was therefore lawful in a complaint-only offence. It held that the statement made around 11 p.m. on 10 July 2019 to a resident, repeated several times, that an 'X-man' in the emergency committee was the victim, and the statement made around 4.30 p.m. on 12 July 2019 at the defendant's home that the victim was the construction company's 'X-man', constituted a public insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the finding on the complaint period, since the court below had neither breached rules of logic and experience nor misread the law on the period for a complaint in a complaint-only offence. On insult, however, it held that the two statements rested on objectively disclosed premise facts and used a mild abstract expression, made in the course of a telephone conversation and of explaining a quarrel, and that they did not warrant the finding that the victim's external reputation was infringed; the appellate judgment misread the meaning of insult under the Criminal Act and affected the outcome. It therefore reversed the guilty part together with the reasoned dismissal of the charge joined to it in one offence, while the remaining acquitted part had already become final because the prosecution did not appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- An expression that seriously risks infringing a person's personality rights, or a hateful swear word that destroys the other person's dignity by heaping humiliation on them.
- A case where special circumstances make the expression likely to infringe external reputation, since the rule applies absent such circumstances.
- A matter of purely private feeling where no objectively disclosed premise fact underlies the expression, since the Court relied on the premise facts stated in the course of raising suspicions.
Record verification notes
Set each statement against the objectively disclosed premise facts, the parties' positions and relationship, the motive and course leading to it, and its manner, meaning, degree, content and context as a whole, since the Court decided on all of them together. Note how the listeners reacted, as the residents here largely observed the affair neutrally and did not confirm the accusation, and how much of the contact the expression occupied, as here it was used only in part of a call lasting about one hour and thirty minutes. Keep the complaint period separate: it was upheld on its own and does not depend on the insult analysis.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 모욕죄의 보호법익(=외부적 명예) / 모욕죄에서 ‘모욕’의 의미 및 어떠한 표현이 모욕에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 / 상대방을 불쾌하게 할 수 있는 무례하고 예의에 벗어난 정도의 표현이거나 상대방에 대한 부정적·비판적 의견 또는 감정을 나타내면서 경미한 수준의 추상적 표현이나 욕설이 사용된 경우, 모욕죄의 구성요건에 해당하는지 여부(원칙적 소극) [2] 피고인과 갑은 아파트 입주예정자 비상대책위원회(약칭 ‘비대위’)에서 함께 활동하다가 각각 동대표로 당선되었는데, 피고인이 입주민들로 구성된 인터넷 카페나 입주민 모임 등에서 갑의 회계처리 방식 등에 대해 이의를 제기하면서 서로 갈등관계에 놓이게 되자, 아파트 입주민들에게 "비대위 안에 X맨이 ○○○(입주자 카페 내 갑의 닉네임)이었어요. 이제 생각해보니까 다 퍼즐이 맞아가지고 지금 소름이 끼쳐요."라고 여러 번 말하거나 "갑이 시공사 X맨이다."라고 말함으로써 갑을 모욕하였다는 내용으로 기소된 사안에서, ‘X맨’이라는 표현은 조직 내부에서 반대세력을 돕는 사람을 비꼬는 정도의 의미로 일상생활이나 언론 등에서 자주 거론되며 비교적 가볍게 사용되는 추상적 표현인 점을 비롯하여 피고인, 갑, 상대방의 지위와 관계, 발언에 이르게 된 동기나 경위 등 제반 사정을 종합하면, 피고인의 발언은 객관적으로 드러난 일정한 전제사실을 기초로 갑의 행위와 처신 등에 대해 의혹을 제기하고 갑에 대한 부정적·비판적 의견이나 감정을 나타내면서 경미한 수준의 추상적 표현을 사용한 것으로 보일 뿐, 객관적으로 갑의 외부적 명예를 침해할 만한 모욕행위에 해당하지 않는다는 이유로, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 형법상 ‘모욕’의 의미에 관한 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The protected legal interest of the crime of insult (= external honor) / the meaning of 'insult' in the crime of insult and the criteria for determining whether a particular expression constitutes an insult / whether an expression that is so rude or contrary to courtesy as to cause discomfort to the other party, or that employs an abstract expression or profanity of a mild level while expressing negative or critical opinions or feelings toward the other party, falls within the constituent elements of the crime of insult (in principle, negative) [2] The defendant and A were active together in the Emergency Response Committee (abbreviated 'the Committee') for prospective residents of an apartment and each elected as a building representative; when the defendant raised objections as to A's method of accounting processing, etc. in an internet cafe composed of apartment residents or at residents' gatherings and thereby the two came to be in a conflicting relationship, the defendant was prosecuted on the charge that he insulted A by saying to the apartment residents on multiple occasions, "The X-man within the Committee was ○○○ (A's nickname in the residents' cafe). Now that I think about it, all the pieces fit together and it gives me chills," and by saying "A is the construction company's X-man," in a case in which, taking into account, among other things, the fact that the expression 'X-man' is an abstract expression that is frequently mentioned in daily life or the media and used in a relatively light sense to mock a person within an organization who assists the opposing faction, together with all circumstances such as the status of and relationship among the defendant, A and the counterparty, and the motive or circumstances that led to the statement, the defendant's statements appear merely to raise suspicions as to A's conduct and behavior based on certain premises objectively revealed and to express negative or critical opinions or feelings toward A while using an abstract expression of a mild level, and thus cannot be regarded as insulting conduct that objectively infringes upon A's external honor; a case in which the court below held otherwise and thereby committed an error of misapprehension of legal principles concerning the meaning of 'insult' under the Criminal Act
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
원심판결 중 유죄 부분(이유 공소기각 부분 포함)을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
Reverses the guilty part of the judgment of the court below (including the part concerning the dismissal of prosecution in the reasoning) and remands this part of the case to the Incheon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제311조 / [2] 형법 제311조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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