A Korean appellate court has overturned a verbal insult conviction, finding that the presence of a single bystander who never passed the information on to anyone else is not enough to satisfy the “publicness” requirement of Korea’s criminal insult offense. Here are the key points.

—

Issue

Does insulting someone in the presence of a single bystander satisfy the publicness requirement for criminal insult under Korean law — where publicness requires either a wide audience or a realistic likelihood that the insult will spread?

—

Facts

– On September 13, 2024, A, a resident in his forties, visited the management office of an officetel in Changwon to complain about a water outage. In the presence of C, a cleaning contractor working at the building, A directed the following remarks at B, a clerical staff member: “How dare the management office behave so rudely to residents” and “You uneducated fool — I’ll watch until you get fired.”
– A was charged with criminal insult. The trial court convicted A and fined him ₩1.5 million, finding the elements of the offense satisfied.

—

Rule

– Criminal insult under Korean law requires, among other elements, that the insult be made publicly — meaning it must be made in a state where an unspecified number of people, or multiple people, could perceive it.
– Even where an insult is directed at one person individually, publicness can still be established if there is a realistic likelihood that the content will spread further — the so-called propagation possibility standard.

—

Appellate Court Decision

– The Changwon District Court (Criminal Division 1, Presiding Judge Lee Ju-yeon) reversed the conviction and acquitted A.
– The court focused on the role of C, the sole witness to the exchange. At trial, C testified that after giving a statement to police, he had not discussed the incident with anyone else.
– The court also noted the nature of the relationship between C and B: C was a cleaning contractor working at the building and referred to B as a senior colleague — a relationship that made it even less likely C would circulate what he had witnessed.
– Given those circumstances, the court found no realistic propagation possibility. The insult was effectively contained between the parties present, with no meaningful prospect of spreading further.
– Without publicness, the criminal insult charge could not be sustained, and the court found no other evidence to support the conviction.

—

Key Takeaways

– The presence of a single bystander does not automatically satisfy the publicness requirement for criminal insult in Korea. Courts look beyond headcount to assess whether there was a realistic likelihood of the content spreading.
– Propagation possibility is assessed concretely — courts examine who the witness is, what relationship they have to the parties, and what they actually did with the information after the fact.
– A witness who explicitly testifies to not having shared what they saw significantly undermines the prosecution’s case on publicness, even if they were physically present at the scene.
– The relationship between the witness and the target of the insult is relevant: where the witness occupies a subordinate or professionally dependent position relative to the victim, courts may find it less likely they would spread the information freely.

—

Why This Matters

This ruling is a useful reminder that Korea’s criminal insult offense is not triggered simply by saying something offensive in front of another person. The publicness element — and particularly the propagation possibility doctrine — requires a genuine assessment of whether the insult could realistically reach a wider audience. For practitioners defending insult charges, this decision highlights the value of examining the witness’s actual conduct after the event and their relationship to the people involved. For those advising on workplace disputes or resident-management conflicts, it underscores that a heated exchange witnessed by one person who keeps it to themselves may not meet the criminal threshold, even if the language used was clearly offensive.

Article: https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260515120000052?input=1195m