"Claim of 'Mandu Soup Stone Broke Molar'... What Is the Result of the 2-Year Lawsuit?"

The restaurant owner who was prosecuted for causing a customer's tooth to break due to a stone found in mandu soup was acquitted after two years.

According to the legal community on the 2nd, Judge Lee Jun-gu of the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 18 Single Judge Court acquitted the restaurant owner A (64) who was indicted on charges of injury by negligence last month on the 26th.

A was charged with breaking the molar of customer B (50), who ate mandu soup at his restaurant in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of June 12, 2020.

원본보기 아이콘

B claimed that he bit into a stone in the mandu soup, which caused his molar to fracture, and took a photo of the stone he spat out at the time. However, A denied the fact that a stone was mixed in the mandu soup and also contested the claim that B suffered an injury with a broken molar.

The prosecution indicted A in April of the following year, arguing that while operating the restaurant, he had a duty to manage and prevent foreign substances from mixing into the food but neglected this duty.

The court, which reviewed the case for two years, acknowledged that A was negligent in his duties. It judged that B's consistent statements from the police investigation through the trial, supported by photos and other evidence, had objectivity.

Although B had a history of receiving insurance payments for dental injuries between 2012 and 2014 before the incident, the court found that this circumstance alone was insufficient motivation for B to lie.

However, the court judged that it was unreasonable to conclude that B suffered damage due to A's breach of duty of care. After the accident, B visited multiple dental clinics over about two months and received opinions that his dental condition was normal from all but one clinic.

One clinic B visited stated, "No abnormal findings were observed, and the patient is complaining of subjective discomfort," adding, "The reproducibility of the discomfort is low, and from the doctor's judgment, the discomfort is not severe."

The court stated, "Both of the two clinics visited by the victim initially recommended monitoring the condition without any treatment, and the victim only began treatment about half a year after the incident," adding, "Considering these points comprehensively, it is difficult to prove based solely on the submitted evidence that the defendant caused injury by negligence in the course of work," and thus delivered a verdict of not guilty.

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.