Company CEO Contacted Fired Employee Multiple Times... Supreme Court Rules "No Inducement of Fear"

1st and 2nd Trials "Repeated Words Causing Fear and Anxiety" Fine of 1.5 Million Won
Supreme Court "Only Notification of Intent to Dismiss... Impulsive and Somewhat Aggressive Expression"

A company CEO who fired an employee due to insincere work attitude and repeatedly sent text messages and made phone calls was fined in the first and second trials, but the Supreme Court overturned the verdict and acquitted him.

The Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) overturned the original ruling that sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 1.5 million won for violating the Information and Communications Network Act and assault charges, and remanded the case to the Daegu District Court.

In February 2021, Mr. A notified employee Mr. B of his dismissal. Mr. B resisted, and Mr. A was charged with sending seven text messages to Mr. B from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. the next day and making two phone calls between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. on the same day. It was alleged that Mr. A repeatedly used language that induced fear or anxiety in Mr. B.

The Information and Communications Network Act prohibits distributing content through information and communication networks that repeatedly delivers codes, words, or sounds that induce fear or anxiety to the other party.

The first and second trials found Mr. A guilty of all charges and sentenced him to a fine of 1.5 million won. However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed. The Supreme Court viewed that the indictment was based only on a very small portion of expressions unfavorable to Mr. A.

The court stated, "The overall content and intent of the phone calls mostly involved the defendant advising the victim and urging acceptance of the dismissal notice and its implementation," and added, "As the victim continued to refuse to accept the dismissal notice, the defendant momentarily lost his temper and used somewhat harsh expressions impulsively while clearly notifying the dismissal intention in his capacity as CEO."

Furthermore, the court ruled, "The overall content merely clearly notified the intention of dismissal, and it can only be seen as a tense and heated form or development of a legal dispute or negotiation process concerning the termination of the employment relationship by dismissal between the defendant and the victim, rather than a series of repetitive acts intended to cause the victim anxiety or fear."

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