After sobering up, woman wipes herself with her own urine-soaked tissue
"Likely no public indecency charge due to her own fault"
A video was released showing a drunken woman mistaking a chair at the dining table where she was drinking for a toilet and urinating on it.
According to JTBC Incident Captain on the 11th, around 9 p.m. that day, a woman and two men entered a bar in Bucheon, Gyeonggi Province. After drinking for more than three hours, as dawn approached, the men left first, leaving the heavily intoxicated woman alone at the drinking spot.
According to JTBC Incident Chief on the 11th, around 9 p.m. that evening, a woman and two men entered a bar in Bucheon, Gyeonggi Province. After drinking for over three hours, as it became early morning, the man left first, leaving the heavily intoxicated woman alone at the drinking table. [Photo by JTBC Incident Chief]
In the video, the woman was so drunk that she could barely walk straight at the place where she drank alone.
Suddenly, the woman stood up, grabbed the waistband of her pants, pulled them down slightly, and sat on a chair. At that moment, she mistook the bar chair for a toilet and urinated on it. Eventually, the bar staff called the police. However, the police tried to wake the woman, who had fallen asleep due to intoxication, by shaking her, but she was unable to regain consciousness for a long time.
Finally, the woman woke up and was led outside the bar by a female police officer.
After regaining her senses, the woman re-entered the bar and wiped the urine she had urinated under the table with tissue. The bar owner, who learned of the damage through the staff's phone call, expressed a desire to "at least receive cleaning costs."
If it was only 'public urination,' indecent exposure charges do not apply
A drunken woman stood up from her seat, grabbed the waistband of her pants, pulled them down slightly, and sat back down on the chair. In that moment, she mistook the bar stool for a toilet and urinated on it. [Photo by JTBC Sajeon Banjang]
Regarding the incident, lawyer Park Ji-hoon explained, "It is not indecent exposure. There is negligence. Property damage requires intent, which does not seem to be the case here. It seems that cleaning costs should be claimed through civil action." He added, "Since it was done by mistake, legal punishment is difficult."
In a similar case, a man in his 60s who was heavily intoxicated and urinated publicly on the street was prosecuted for indecent exposure but was acquitted in court. Although public urination may fall under the Minor Offenses Act, applying indecent exposure charges was deemed excessive.
The Seoul Eastern District Court Criminal Division 5 (Judge Sang-ryul Lee) acquitted Mr. A (then 64), who was charged with indecent exposure.
In a similar case, a man in his 60s who was caught urinating in public while heavily intoxicated was prosecuted for public indecency but was acquitted in court. The court ruled that while public urination may fall under the Minor Offenses Act, applying charges of public indecency was excessive. [Photo by Pixabay]
The intoxicated Mr. A urinated on the street in front of a convenience store and exposed his genitals toward the street. The prosecution applied indecent exposure charges, arguing that he intentionally exposed his private parts in a busy street with many pedestrians and nearby store customers. Witnesses consistently testified that "Mr. A publicly exposed his body and urinated on the street in a crowded public place," and the prosecution submitted this as evidence.
However, the court's judgment was different. The judge ruled that Mr. A's public urination did not constitute indecent exposure and acquitted him. The decisive factor for the acquittal was that the CCTV footage showed Mr. A did not engage in any other sexual behavior besides urinating.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
