A man who left a bottle of soju filled with methanol in front of his biological father’s house along with a note in his deceased grandmother’s name saying “I want to see you soon” was found guilty by the Supreme Court. However, the court ruled him not guilty for the charge of special intimidation through the use of the soju bottle.
The defendant, identified as A, was brought to trial on charges of repeatedly placing a bottle of soju containing high-concentration methanol (79.9%) in front of his father B’s (52) house in March 2024. The soju bottle had a note attached, purportedly from his deceased grandmother, stating “B. I want to see you soon… -from Mom-”.
It was investigated that A, while undergoing trial for assaulting his father, tried to reach a settlement by visiting his father’s residence in Ulsan but was turned away at the door, which led to the crime. Prosecutors charged A with retaliation threats under the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes Act, special intimidation against family members, and violation of the Stalking Punishment Act.
In the first trial, all charges against A were acknowledged, resulting in a sentence of one year and six months imprisonment with a three-year probation period, a decision that was upheld in the second trial. The court acknowledged the retaliation threat charges, stating that A committed the crime out of spite for a series of events from the related criminal case to being turned away by B. Given that the crime was repeated five times before B’s complaint, charges under special intimidation and the stalking punishment law were deemed sufficiently substantiated.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision differed. On the 25th, the Supreme Court’s First Division, led by Justice Shin Sook-hee, ruled that the charge of special intimidation against direct family members could not be established and sent the case back to the lower court for revision. The Supreme Court recognized A’s actions as retaliation and stalking, but determined that because A left the soju bottle and departed the scene, it couldn’t be considered as “carrying” the dangerous item, which is necessary to apply the charge of special intimidation.
According to the penal code, special intimidation involves threatening someone while carrying a dangerous item (Penal Code Article 284). The Supreme Court has interpreted “carrying” as possessing or keeping something on one’s person. For “special intimidation” to be established, the defendant must have actual control over the dangerous item and be able to use it to increase the possibility of realizing the threat.
Previously, a man in his 40s who placed a weapon in front of former People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon’s house was similarly found not guilty. The Supreme Court ruled that because the individual left the knife and lighter in front of the door before departing the building, it did not constitute “carrying,” and opted for an acquittal regarding the special intimidation charge.