Supreme Court Confirms Guilty Verdict for Hong Seong-yeol, Mario Outlet Chairman, for 'Verbal Abuse' of Employee... 3 Million Won Fine

Objection to 2 Million Won Fine Summary Order and Request for Formal Trial
First Trial Court Sentences Higher Maximum Penalty Than Prosecutor's Recommendation

The fine imposed on Hong Seong-yeol, chairman of Mario Outlet, who was indicted for insult after verbally abusing employees, has been finalized.

On the 31st, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice No Tae-ak) held a sentencing hearing for Hong's appeal trial on the insult charge and upheld the original ruling of a 3 million won fine.

Hong Seong-yeol, Chairman of Mario Outlet.

The court explained the reason for dismissing the appeal, stating, "There is no error in the lower court's judgment that it did not violate the rules of logic and experience by failing to conduct necessary investigations as claimed in the grounds for appeal, nor did it exceed the limits of free evaluation of evidence or misinterpret the law regarding justifiable acts."

Hong was brought to trial on charges of verbally abusing employees multiple times on September 8, 2019, while operating a tourist farm in Yeoncheon, Gyeonggi Province.

At that time, due to the impact of Typhoon 'Lingling,' he said to employees, "You pathetic XX, quit immediately and get lost," because they did not quickly remove a fallen willow tree.

He was also charged with mixing insults while giving work instructions to employees and making derogatory remarks such as, "You look like a cattle thief and seem incapable of working."

The prosecution requested a summary order for a fine of 2 million won against Hong, but he objected and requested a formal trial.

In court, Hong's side argued that he never made the statements listed in the indictment, and even if he did, they were justifiable acts permissible under social norms.

However, the first-instance court rejected all such claims by Hong's side, found him guilty of insult, and sentenced him to a fine of 3 million won. The court also ordered Hong to bear all litigation costs.

The court's judgment was based on the consistency and non-contradictory nature of the victims' testimonies, and the absence of any grounds for justifiable acts under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

In particular, the first-instance court pointed out in its sentencing rationale, "This case involves the defendant, who is the president, insulting the dignity of employee victims, which is a very serious offense," and added, "Considering the nature of this offense, it would be appropriate to impose imprisonment, but under Article 457-2, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a fine must be imposed."

Article 457-2 (Prohibition of Increasing the Type of Punishment, etc.) Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that "In cases where the defendant requests a formal trial, a heavier type of punishment than the summary order cannot be imposed."

Given the severity of Hong's offense, imprisonment or detention would be appropriate, but since the law prohibits this, a fine was imposed. The court imposed the maximum fine of 3 million won available at the time.

The statutory punishment for insult is "imprisonment or detention for up to one year, or a fine of up to 2 million won," but since Hong requested a formal trial, it was impossible to impose imprisonment or detention, which are heavier punishments than a fine. Therefore, the court imposed the highest possible punishment through cumulative offenses (multiple crimes committed), which under the Criminal Act can be increased up to half of the heaviest punishment.

Additionally, the court at the time stated, "Despite the victims' testimonies, which were like cries for help, the defendant consistently lied, denied the charges, and showed no remorse. The defendant has not been forgiven by the victims. Considering all sentencing factors revealed in the case records and arguments, including the defendant's age, occupation, character, environment, family relations, circumstances of the crime, and post-crime situation, the sentence is determined as ordered, and the defendant is additionally ordered to bear the litigation costs."

Hong appealed, but the second-instance court reached the same conclusion.

In particular, the second-instance court pointed out regarding Hong's claim of justifiable acts, "None of the requirements for recognizing justifiable acts?legitimacy of purpose, appropriateness of means, balance of legal interests, urgency, and subsidiarity?were met." It also found no circumstances suggesting that the victims filed false accusations seeking settlement money.

The Supreme Court also found no problem with the lower courts' judgments.

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