Man in his 50s Causes Disturbance for Drying Underwear with Sauna Hair Dryer, Fined 3 Million Won in Both Trial and Appeal

A man in his 50s who caused a disturbance for several tens of minutes after being stopped for drying his underwear with a hairdryer in a sauna was fined in both the first and second trials.

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A man in his 50s who caused a disturbance for several tens of minutes after being stopped for drying his underwear with a hairdryer in a sauna was sentenced to a fine of 3 million won again in the appellate court.

According to the court on the 2nd, the 50th Criminal Appeals Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Go Yeongeum) recently dismissed the appeal of Mr. A (53, male), who was indicted on charges of obstruction of business and property damage.

The court stated, "Although the defendant admitted his wrongdoing and generally showed a remorseful attitude, which is a favorable circumstance, considering the circumstances and details of the crime, the culpability is not light. Taking into account that he has a prior record of similar offenses, has not reached an agreement with the victim, and the damage has not been restored, the original sentence cannot be seen as excessively heavy beyond the reasonable limits of discretion."

Earlier, Mr. A was brought to trial on charges of causing a disturbance after being stopped by Mr. B (37), the security manager of a sauna, while drying his underwear with a hairdryer provided in the men's changing room of a sauna in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, around 9:40 a.m. on April 17 last year.

He was investigated to have kicked and damaged items at the counter, thrown glass bottles on the floor to break them, and caused a commotion for about 30 minutes. He also cursed, saying "XX, owner come out here," and "I will tear your mouth that speaks informally," and threatened Mr. B several times as if to hit him.

The first trial sentenced him to a fine of 3 million won. It also reprimanded, "The defendant has committed similar offenses several times before and after this incident and has already been punished with fines. There is no circumstance to consider that the victim's damage has been restored. Appropriate punishment corresponding to the defendant's responsibility is necessary."

However, it also stated, "However, the defendant admits the crime, and the degree of obstruction of business and property damage is limited. Various sentencing factors such as the defendant's age, character, criminal record, circumstances of the crime, and attitude after the crime were considered together."