The Supreme Court judged that using the expression 'national hotel girl' toward singer and actress Suzy (29, Bae Suzy) amounted to an insult.



Because it demeaned Mr. Bae in a way that made her a sexual object, she was deemed to meet the constitutional requirements of the offense of insult.



The 2nd Division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge Min Yoo-sook) announced today (28th) that it has broken the lower court that acquitted a man in his 40s who was accused of insulting Bae and sent the case back to the Seoul Northern District Court.



On October 29, 2015, Mr. A was handed over to trial for insulting Mr. Bae by commenting on an article related to Mr.



On December 3 of the same year, 'Why did you attach Mr. Bae, who is a movie bomber, to B (another celebrity)?

He was also accused of leaving a comment saying, 'JYP unfollow me.



Later, during the trial, it became an issue whether expressions such as 'national hotel girl', 'bubble', and 'resignation' were considered insults.



In response, Mr. A's side argued that it was just an expression of legitimate criticism of the commerciality of entertainment agencies and an expression of interest in celebrities.



However, the first trial court judged that the use of expressions such as 'national hotel girl' constituted an insult.



A fine of 1 million won was sentenced, saying that the victim was a celebrity and that even taking into account the uniqueness of internet comments, it was not included in the range permitted by sound social norms.





Considering that celebrities are the target of public attention, it was that different standards should be applied to celebrities and non-celebrities when judging whether or not to constitute an insult.



The Supreme Court also judged that expressions such as 'bubble', 'movie explosion', and 'retirement' were rough expressions of Mr. Bae's criticism of the public domain, but fall within the realm of freedom of expression.



The judgment of the second trial, which acquitted him of these expressions, was confirmed.



However, regarding the expression 'National Hotel Girl', the Supreme Court pointed out, "It is a way to sexually objectify Mr. Bae while implying the image opposite to Mr. Bae's existing image."



The intention is that it corresponds to a contemptuous expression that can lower Mr. Bae's social evaluation.



Through this ruling, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that we should be careful in judging insulting expressions about the personal life of celebrities that they do not fall under the constituent requirements of the crime of insult or violate social norms based on freedom of expression.



It was also pointed out that the expression 'national hotel girl' could have the character of expressing hate against female celebrities.



The Supreme Court judged the case guilty and dismissed it, saying, "In the judgment of the lower court, there was a mistake that affected the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles regarding the establishment of the crime of insult and not conducting sufficient trials."