The Supreme Court ruled that a son who left a soju bottle containing methanol in front of his father's home to threaten him cannot be charged with the aggravated offense of special intimidation against a lineal ascendant. The court said it cannot be deemed "special intimidation" unless the offender actually possesses a dangerous object in the victim's presence or is in a position to use it while making the threat.
The Supreme Court's First Petty Bench (presiding Justice Shin Suk-hee) said on the 25th it overturned the lower court's ruling that sentenced a defendant, identified only as A, to one year and six months in prison, suspended for three years, on charges including violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (retaliatory intimidation), special intimidation against a lineal ascendant, and violating the anti-stalking law, and remanded the case to the Busan High Court.
A had previously received a 10-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, in 2024 for offenses including special assault against a lineal ascendant targeting the father, identified as B (53). A sought to reach an agreement with the father while the first trial in that case was underway. A visited B's home in Ulju County, Ulsan, with the maternal grandmother on Mar. 10, 2024, but when B refused to talk, A harbored resentment, it was found.
The next day, A put a liquid with a methanol concentration of 79.9% into an empty soju bottle and left it in front of B's front door. A note was attached to the bottle in the name of the grandmother who had already died, reading, "○○○ (father's name), I want to see you soon. -From Mom-." A was accused of making four more threats in the same manner through the 19th of the same month, as if intending to harm B's life or body.
In the first trial, the court found A guilty of all charges and sentenced A to one year and six months in prison, suspended for three years. The first trial court said, "Affixing notes in the name of the victim's mother who died long ago, with content inducing or suggesting suicide, to soju bottles containing methanol in amounts exceeding a lethal dose, and repeatedly placing them in front of the victim's residence to threaten and stalk show extremely poor criminal culpability."
However, the court explained the reason for the suspended sentence, saying, "The defendant was in an unfavorable family environment and, even during the probation period, at times exhibited signs of delusional disorder."
The appellate court also upheld the first trial's decision. The appellate court said, "It is difficult to view A's actions as merely an expression of momentary anger with no intent whatsoever to harm the victim," and dismissed both A's and the prosecutor's appeals.
The Supreme Court, however, reached a different conclusion. While it acknowledged the charges of retaliatory intimidation under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and violation of the anti-stalking law, it found that the charge of special intimidation against a lineal ascendant did not stand.
The Supreme Court determined that for the crime of special intimidation to be established, the offender must threaten the victim while carrying a dangerous object. A merely placed the soju bottle containing methanol in front of B's door and left the scene; because A did not threaten the victim while carrying it, A cannot be punished for special intimidation against a lineal ascendant.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Busan High Court to reexamine the legal principles on this part.