Prosecutorial Decision Based on Presumed Intent to Steal Overturned by Constitutional Court
Court Finds Lack of Sufficient Evidence for Criminal Intent in Umbrella Case
The Constitutional Court has overturned a prosecutorial decision to suspend indictment against a man in his 60s who mistakenly took someone else's umbrella, believing it to be his own. The court found fault with the prosecution's decision, which was based on the assumption that the man had criminal intent to commit theft, despite the difficulty in definitively establishing such intent and the absence of further investigation.
On August 29, the Constitutional Court unanimously ruled in favor of Mr. A, who had filed a constitutional complaint seeking to overturn the suspension of indictment (2023Hun-Ma79). The court stated, "The suspension of indictment against the petitioner (Mr. A) infringed upon his right to equality and his pursuit of happiness, and is therefore hereby annulled."
In August 2022, Mr. A was given a suspension of indictment by prosecutors on suspicion of stealing a black long umbrella worth approximately 200,000 won, which the victim had left in an umbrella stand at a restaurant in Gangnam-gu, Seoul.
Mr. A argued, "I mistakenly believed the victim's umbrella was my own and took it," and claimed that the prosecution's decision to suspend indictment was unjust because it was based on the presumption that he had criminal intent, which he denied.
The Constitutional Court noted, "Both the petitioner's and the victim's umbrellas were black long umbrellas and looked similar in color and size," adding, "Given the petitioner's age and health condition, his claim that he confused the umbrellas is not unreasonable." The court took into account that Mr. A was 62 years old at the time of the incident and had undergone neurological examinations about four years earlier due to reported memory decline.
The court further explained, "Although the victim's umbrella was wrapped in plastic on the handle, unlike the petitioner's, this is a minor detail and could easily lead to confusion," and added, "While the victim's umbrella had a luxury foreign car brand logo attached, it cannot be determined from the CCTV footage alone whether the petitioner noticed the logo on the victim's umbrella."
The court continued, "At the time of the incident, Mr. A visited the restaurant located directly in front of his residence with two companions, and when retrieving the umbrella, his companions had already completed payment by credit card. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to accept that Mr. A would have intentionally stolen the umbrella."
The court concluded, "Considering all these factors, it is plausible that Mr. A took the victim's umbrella believing it was his own, and based on the investigation records alone, it is difficult to definitively establish criminal intent. Nevertheless, the prosecutor suspended indictment on the presumption of intent without further investigation, which constitutes a significant investigative oversight or error in evaluating the evidence."
Hong Yoonji, Law Times Reporter
※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
