An 80-year-old visually impaired person who mistakenly gave vinegar to a neighbor, causing their death, was sentenced to probation.
On the 25th, Chief Judge Jeong In-young of the Ulsan District Court’s Criminal Division 4 sentenced A, who was charged with involuntary manslaughter, to four months in prison, suspended for one year.
A, who is classified as Level 1 visually impaired, was talking with neighbors at a resting area near his home in Ulsan last September when he heard the voices of acquaintances B and C, both in their 70s. He went home and brought out a vitamin beverage, handing it to them.
Both B and C accepted and drank it, but while B experienced no issues, C immediately complained of discomfort and went to the bathroom to vomit.
Another neighbor, observing the situation, took the bottle C had drunk from to a nearby pharmacy, where the pharmacist informed them that it was not safe to drink, leading to paramedics arriving and transporting C to the hospital.
Unfortunately, C died while receiving treatment.
Investigations revealed that the bottle A gave to C was labeled “edible vinegar,” indicating A had mistaken it for a vitamin drink.
During the trial, A’s defense argued that due to severe visual impairment, A could not read labels, distinguish colors, or identify objects without movement, thereby claiming a lack of negligence.
However, the court ruled that A, despite his visual impairment, had a duty to ensure that what he was giving to others was not poisonous. This meant that since A’s eyesight could not distinguish, he should have asked people around him to confirm whether it was a beverage bottle.
Notably, the vitamin drink bottle given to B was smooth, while the vinegar bottle given to C had ridges, meaning A could have discerned the difference by touch.
The court stated, “The defendant’s failure to properly check the contents led to the victim’s death—a severe outcome. However, we considered the fact that the victim was intoxicated and did not verify the contents of the bottle, the settlement with the bereaved family who did not wish for punishment, and the defendant’s age.”