Criminal trial on insult charges

Joo Ho-min filed the complaint himself

Acquitted at both trial levels — now final

Court cites respect for freedom of expression

Webtoon artist Joo Ho-min leaves court after the first-instance sentencing hearing in the trial of a special education teacher in February 2024. [Yonhap]
Webtoon artist Joo Ho-min leaves court after the first-instance sentencing hearing in the trial of a special education teacher in February 2024. [Yonhap]

A court has finalized the acquittal of an internet user who posted a comment saying children who "act like that" should be physically disciplined — a remark made in response to news coverage of webtoon artist Joo Ho-min, who filed a criminal complaint against the special education teacher of his son, who has autism spectrum disorder. The court acknowledged the language was offensive but said freedom of expression must be respected.

Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Division 9-3, presided over by Judge Jeong Hye-won, upheld the first-instance acquittal of the defendant, identified only as A, in an appeal ruling in April.

A was charged with criminal insult after posting a comment in November 2023 on a news article about Joo, writing that "kids who act like Joo Ho-min's son should be hit — trying to handle it with words is what leads to mistakes." At the time, the criminal trial of a special education teacher accused of emotionally abusing Joo's son was under way.

Joo filed the complaint against A directly. Because criminal insult in South Korea is a victim-initiated offense, a formal complaint from the victim is required before an investigation or trial can proceed. A was indicted in October 2024.

A denied the charges. During the trial, A's defense argued the comment was "no more than the expression of a negative or critical opinion about the victim's conduct, using a mildly abstract turn of phrase."

The first-instance court accepted that argument and acquitted A in June last year.

The trial court concluded that, "taking all circumstances together, the comment A posted cannot readily be seen as something that would lower the victim's social standing by expressing an abstract judgment or contemptuous feeling directed at the victim's character."

As its reasoning, the court noted that "at the time of posting, A had learned through the article that Joo's son had suddenly exposed himself in front of a female classmate," and that "the motivation for the comment appears to have stemmed from an intent to criticize that behavior out of aversion to it, rather than from personal animosity."

The court added that "even though the phrase 'a kid who acts like that' was used, it can be read as an expression focused on the victim's bad behavior — particularly the sexual nature of it — rather than a direct characterization of the victim's personality." It went on to say the expression "cannot be seen as rising to the level of humiliation severe enough to constitute a serious violation of the victim's dignity."

The court also noted that "the comment concerned a matter of public interest" and that A had posted it "with the intent to criticize the behavior the victim exhibited in the classroom."

The court said the comment's "primary purpose appears to have been to express the view that the conduct should be corrected through physical discipline rather than verbal reprimand alone," and that it was difficult to conclude the primary intent was to violate the victim's dignity.

Prosecutors appealed, but the appellate court reached the same conclusion.

The appellate panel — also Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Division 9-3, presided over by Judge Jeong Hye-won — ruled in April that "it is difficult to characterize the expression as insulting," finding it could be read as an argument for the necessity of physical discipline.

The appellate court said A "appears to have used the somewhat coarse expression in the process of emphasizing and condensing a personal opinion," and that while the language was "somewhat aggressive, it does not rise to the level of abusive language that would obliterate the victim's dignity."

The ruling is now final.

Kim Nam-o, an attorney at law firm Honglim who represented A, said the ruling "confirms that the scope of critical expression on matters of public concern involving public figures should be interpreted broadly." He cautioned that "even if online expression is somewhat rough, there is a need for restraint before immediately pursuing criminal punishment without examining the context and intent."

Meanwhile, the special education teacher accused of emotionally abusing Joo's son was acquitted on appeal in May last year. The first-instance court had admitted as evidence a recording device Joo had secretly placed in his son's coat, but the appellate court rejected its admissibility. Prosecutors have appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case remains pending.


notstrong@heraldcorp.com