Court Rules "Justifiable Defense as a Means of Passive Resistance"
Actions to Stop Filming Deemed Not a Crime
It was about two years ago when Mr. A (63) visited a restaurant in Jeongseon-gun, Gangwon-do, and waited for the food he ordered. At that time, Ms. B (50, female) entered the restaurant and began to complain to the restaurant owner.
When Ms. B caused a disturbance by even filming a video, Mr. A told the restaurant owner, "Report this as business obstruction." Upon hearing this, Ms. B approached Mr. A and started filming him with her phone.
Angered, Mr. A picked up a soy sauce bottle from the table and swung it toward Ms. B as if to hit her.
Subsequently, Mr. A was investigated by law enforcement on charges of assault and received a summary order with a fine of 500,000 won.
Mr. A felt the incident was unfair. Ultimately, he appealed the summary order and requested a formal trial, claiming innocence.
The prosecutor files a summary order request in writing to the district court simultaneously with the indictment. Cases eligible for summary orders are those punishable by fines, penalties, or confiscation under the jurisdiction of the district court. When a summary order request is made, the court generally conducts a written review, but may investigate facts if necessary.
The first trial court viewed Mr. A’s actions as self-defense to protect himself from an unjust attack. It judged that his behavior constituted justifiable defense as a passive resistance to escape the attack or was an act socially acceptable under common sense.
At the time, when Mr. A tried to stop the disturbance, Ms. B began filming without consent while verbally abusing him. The court found this not only lacked a legitimate purpose but also inevitably caused Mr. A discomfort as the one being filmed unilaterally.
The court also considered that if the video, along with the one-sided claims of the filmer, were posted online, Mr. A would suffer an unfair violation of his portrait rights, using this as grounds for acquittal. The court saw Mr. A’s act of simply picking up and swinging the soy sauce bottle as a form of physical force intended only to stop the filming and make Ms. B back off. Ultimately, the first trial court concluded that Mr. A’s actions did not constitute a crime.
The prosecution appealed, arguing that Mr. A could have avoided the filming by other means, but the second trial court also dismissed the appeal, ruling that Mr. A’s conduct did not violate social norms.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
