Supreme Court Confirms Prison Sentence for Man Who Made 18 Calls in 1 Hour 42 Minutes, Disrupting Restaurant Operations

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] A man who made 18 phone calls over 1 hour and 42 minutes, disrupting a restaurant's business out of anger during a food delivery order process, has been sentenced to prison.

The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Ahn Cheol-sang) announced on the 7th that it upheld the original sentence of six months imprisonment in the final appeal trial of Mr. A, who was indicted on charges of obstruction of business.

The court stated, "Under the Criminal Procedure Act, appeals on the grounds of excessive sentencing are only permitted in cases where the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or detention of 10 years or more is imposed. Since a lighter sentence was imposed in this case, the claim that the sentence is too heavy and unfair does not constitute a valid reason for appeal," explaining the reason for dismissing the appeal.

The court also noted, "The defendant claimed mental and physical disability in the appeal brief, but the lower court regarded the defendant's appeal reason only as a claim of excessive sentencing and did not make a judgment on the mental and physical disability claim," but "considering the relevant legal principles and properly admitted evidence, it does not appear that the defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability at the time of each offense in this case, so the lower court's omission of such judgment does not affect the outcome of the verdict."

Mr. A was indicted on charges of obstructing business by intimidation after making 18 phone calls from 10:58 p.m. on September 27, 2020, to 12:40 a.m. the next day, while ordering food from a tteokbokki restaurant at his home in Gangseo-gu, Seoul, because he was angry that the restaurant owner ignored his order.

During the 1 hour and 42 minutes, Mr. A made 18 calls, verbally abused the restaurant owner, and said things like "I will kill your parents" and "I will come to find you at 12 noon tomorrow and kill you," preventing the restaurant owner from taking other customers' orders and preparing food, according to the investigation.

Additionally, while on trial for the above case, on December 26, 2020, Mr. A entered a bakery in Gangseo-gu, Seoul, intoxicated, shouted at the store staff, hit bread placed on the counter with his hand causing the bakery owner to be hit, and caused a disturbance for about 17 minutes. He was re-indicted on charges of obstruction of business by intimidation and was tried together for both cases.

The first trial court sentenced Mr. A to six months imprisonment, stating, "The defendant committed the same type of crime and has a history of multiple punishments, yet reoffended, and committed the offenses during the probation period."

Mr. A had already been sentenced to 10 months imprisonment with a two-year probation for another obstruction of business charge confirmed on July 23, 2020.

The court explained the sentencing reason, saying, "Although the defendant confessed, considering his attitude in court, it is judged that he is not reflecting on his wrongdoing. Considering various circumstances, it is necessary to impose a prison sentence on the defendant to demonstrate the severity of the law."

During the appeal trial, another charge against Mr. A (obstruction of official duties) was consolidated and tried. However, Mr. A withdrew his appeal on the obstruction of official duties case during the trial, so the first trial sentence of eight months imprisonment with two years probation was upheld, and the prosecution applied for permission to amend the indictment reflecting this situation.

As the court permitted the prosecution's amendment of the indictment, changing the subject of the trial, the appellate court overturned the first trial verdict and reissued a judgment, but the result of a six-month prison sentence remained unchanged.

The Supreme Court found no problem with the appellate court's judgment.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.