On the 4th, Judge Chang Chang-seok, the 8th detective of the Seoul Central District Court, convicted Mr. 67-year-old A, who was accused of insults by insulting the citizens, saying, "Sewol issue XXX, □□A." Participant A, who was in the opposition to the Sewol ferry, was put on trial on July 13 last year on charges of swearing to the citizens filming the opposition rally, "Sewol ferry XXXs. Judge Choi judged that the swear word "Sewol issue XXXs" was something that Mr. A spit out during the participation in the rally, and that it was difficult to say that it was addressed to the victims. In addition, I thought that it was not an insult because it was hard to say that this abusive expression of disgust was objectively hindering the social evaluation of the victims, even if it was different. Mr. A is called abusive naebaeteun "□□ O" towards the victims also boindamyeo to naebaeteun abusive situations in the brawl, "jieonjeong have caused unpleasant feelings, it does not correspond to the contempt which inhibit social assessment of the victim" was determined to.


● The dual role of indictment of insult The

Supreme Court stipulates that, even if an expression triggers unpleasant emotions, it is necessary to comprehensively consider the context of the expression in order to be subject to criminal punishment called'insult.' When it comes to whether or not the problematic expressive behavior is an insult, it is also considered that it is necessary to objectively degrade the social evaluation of the other person's personal value. (Judgment of the Supreme Court 2015, 2229)

Judge Choi said in the ruling, "When you insult an offense, you must strictly judge whether it falls under'social evaluation deterioration'." He added that this interpretation is consistent with the value of the freedom of expression and the value of the last resort of criminal law.

This ruling is part of the criticism of academia and civil society, which has been raised on the widespread application of insults in that it strictly interprets the scope of insults. In the case above, it was applied to Mr. A who abused the citizens, but insults have often been used as a tool for prosecuting citizens who criticized police officers and politicians and high-ranking officials at protest sites. Because of this, criticism has been raised that prosecutors with prosecution and courts who make final judgments have given excessive discretion.

Empirical studies also support this critique. Park Jang-hee's article <Experimental Study on Domestic Cases of Insults>, which analyzed 505 cases of insult trials in five years from 2013 to 2017, is representative. According to the study, an insult lawsuit has the effect of protecting the interests of police officers and has a tendency to suppress the expression of low social hierarchies.

According to the arguments in this context, the abolition or strict application of insults can be seen as contributing to the protection of civil liberties. Park Jang-hee, the author of the aforementioned paper, argues, "Even if it's an extreme statement that is harsh, unpleasant, or rude, tolerating it can be a kind of cost that we have to pay to enjoy the benefits of democracy."

There is also the opposite. When the state exercised the punishment right of insult, it was evaluated that it was functioning in civil society. The'Bonojit Hussein Case', which condemned the first insult to racist remarks, is typical. This is a case in which the court convicted 2009 of Mr. B, who spoke to Mr. Bonozit Hussein, a professor at the Sukhoi University of India, saying "Arabs are dirty" and "I smell bad." Since then, the court has convicted the immigrant of someone who has made a statement to the immigrant of marriage as "illegal." When the rulings that condemned the expression of hate were imposed, it was evaluated that'the alarm sounded in a society where discrimination and hate is spreading'.

● The insistence on the abolition of insults and the prohibition of discrimination

are often evaluated as'preserving freedom of expression' when applied carefully and strictly, but sometimes when they are actively interpreted, they are evaluated as'regulating discrimination and aversion' I receive it. This demonstrates the dual role that the application of the criminal code of'offenses' plays in protecting the virtues of civil society.

The problem is that important values ​​such as'freedom of expression' and'prevention of discrimination and hate' can be overly dependent on judges' decisions and decisions, not citizens. Because of this, progressive law lawyers and some civic groups have offered the opinion "to abolish insult". In 2016, lawmaker Geum Tae-seop proposed a law to abolish insults, but failed to pay off.

As the emotions of discrimination and hate are more frequently expressed in the form of'insult', new claims have been made. Instead of insulting crimes, where judges' discretion and judgment are overly intervening, the view is to enact a ``discrimination law,'' which is clearly regulated. In a similar vein, a bill to regulate hateful expressions has been proposed twice last year. It is to regulate the insults of people or groups with specific characteristics such as race, religion, gender, disability, and gender identity. It is an attempt to solve the increasingly common problems of discrimination and hate through new legal regulations.
● Things to think about before the introduction

of legal regulations Some critics say that it is not appropriate to legally regulate insults that appear in the form of aversion. Constitutionalist Seung-Hyun Lee presents the problems that can be caused by legal regulation of hateful expressions in the article titled on the webpage of the March 2019 issue of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea. The author first notes that "legal regulation of hateful expressions may induce prejudice and discrimination into society, thereby losing the place to solve the problem." Rather than fundamentally addressing the prejudices and discrimination inherent in society, legal regulation can lead to the regulation of only the'expression' that appears. Instead of seeing the structure of the emotions of hate and discrimination, if the repetition of'let's do it law' is repeated when expressions of hate occur, the problem is difficult to truly resolve. Like wisdom teeth that take root in the gums and hide, there is a concern that the emotions of disgust and discrimination may be hidden in the depths of society.

It is also suggested that "regulatory regulation can rather provoke disgusted talkers, and bring them an exhibition of self-justification." The issue may not seem to be the cause of concern, as the Sewol issue of the May 18 family faces legal sanctions after making a hate statement against the bereaved families. The authors also have other problems with the legal regulations on hate expressions such as △ blocking the way for target groups of expressions to recover, and △ making members of target groups of expressions of aversion express themselves as victims. As presented.

In the situation where even the words'everyday of hate and discrimination' have arisen, it may be felt as an overly relaxing story. In recent years, people who use hateful expressions of subtly use this view as a defense logic against themselves. But what matters is more than punishing someone, less hatred and discrimination that is expanding its territory. Because of this, even when introducing legal regulations, there must be sufficient consideration of these issues in the design of legal regulations.

This is also an important issue for reporters like me who are working as media workers in the civil society arena. The mainstream media vigorously speaks of political correctness, but it is no longer America's job to cross the sea to make public mobilization a means of political mobilization. Beyond party and enlightenment, the more complex task of explaining why hate and discrimination is harmful to people is a more complex task for members of civil society in public discourse.

*References
<Experimental Study on Domestic Cases of Insults>, Jang Hee Park, Korean Journal of Journalism, Vol. 64, No. 2
< Focus on the regulation of hateful expression under current law, especially on the possibility of applying crimes on honor>, Choi Ran, Media and Personality Volume 4 No. 2
<express hate, should it be legally regulated>, Lee Seung-hyun, National Human Rights Commission of Korea March 2019 Webzine
[Exclusive] Insults to immigrant marriage migrants, Kim Min-kyung reporter, Hankyoreh newspaper December 11, 2017