'Misdelivered' Kimchi Delivery Stored in Refrigerator, Criminal Trial... 2nd Trial Also Not Guilty

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A woman in her 40s who was criminally prosecuted for opening a misdelivered kimchi package left at her home a day before her departure and putting it in the refrigerator was acquitted again in the appellate court. ▶Refer to Asia Economy March 1 article 'Misdelivered Kimchi Package Before Departure... Put in Refrigerator, Ended Up in Criminal Trial [Seocho-dong Legal Story]'

According to the court on the 20th, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Appeals Division 1-2 (Presiding Judge Maeng Hyun-moo) recently acquitted Ms. A (49, female), who was indicted on charges of embezzlement of lost property, just as in the first trial.

Previously, Ms. A, who lives in an officetel in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, found a delivery box left in front of her house on the evening of July 1 last year. It was a package misdelivered by the mother of Ms. B (24, female), who had previously lived in that house, due to confusing her daughter's address. The box contained 600g of kimchi and six face mask packs.

Ms. A, who was scheduled to depart overseas the next day, was anxious. The recipient's name and phone number on the delivery slip were partially obscured with asterisks (*). She divided the kimchi into containers and put them in the refrigerator.

Ms. B received a call from the delivery driver that morning and went to pick up the package after 7 p.m. Ms. A gave her one container of kimchi, saying, "I put it in the refrigerator to prevent it from spoiling." While talking with her mother, Ms. B realized that some kimchi and the face mask packs were missing. When she went back to complain, Ms. A returned the face mask packs but did not return all the kimchi.

Following Ms. B's report, Ms. A was investigated. Ms. A explained to the investigators that "I forgot to give the face mask packs from the beginning because I was busy with personal work. Some of the kimchi was in someone else's containers, so I couldn't return it immediately." The prosecution applied the charge of embezzlement of lost property and brought Ms. A to trial.

The first trial ruled "not guilty." It stated, "There is suspicion that Ms. A opened the package intending to keep the delivery mail," but also said, "It cannot be concluded that Ms. A's claim lacks plausibility or rationality." It added, "It was difficult to contact before Ms. B came to pick it up herself, and the delivery driver did not provide any contact regarding the delivery."

Although the prosecutor appealed, the appellate court also agreed with this judgment. The appellate court said, "It was a hot summer at the time, and the package was labeled as containing 'food.'" It added, "Considering that Ms. A was going overseas the next day and would be away from home for a long time, it seems reasonable to check the contents."

Since the food was perishable, it was considered reasonable to store it in the refrigerator and wait about a day for the owner to pick it up, or if the owner did not come before departure, to dispose of it as food waste.

Furthermore, "If it were someone else's property and simply left unattended, at least the defendant would not have been treated as a criminal," and "However, if the owner did not pick it up and the contents spoiled, it was obvious that the surrounding residents would suffer significant damage." The court emphasized, "The defendant was not obligated to actively find the delivery owner and return the items."

The appellate court added, "Considering that it was a situation where it was reasonable to expect the delivery owner to come to pick up the package soon based on the usual delivery process, it is difficult to infer that the defendant had the intention of illegal gain."

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