Denied Intent to Conceal, Claimed Innocence
Court Upholds 1 Million Won Fine on Appeal
A public official in his 40s has ended up with a criminal record after hiding a colleague's work laptop because he suspected it was being used for personal purposes.
On June 29, Yonhap News reported that the Chuncheon District Court Criminal Division 1 (Chief Judge Shim Hyungeun) sentenced Mr. A (42), who was charged with concealment of property, to a fine of 1 million won, upholding the original verdict.
Mr. A, an employee of Wonju City Hall, was summarily indicted on charges of hiding a colleague B's laptop?also a public official in the same department?by placing it in his own desk drawer in June last year and sealing it shut with several layers of black tape to prevent it from being opened.
Investigations found that Mr. A believed Mr. B was using the city-owned laptop for personal reasons, and during his leave of absence, he came to the office and committed the act. Mr. A objected to the summary order of a fine and requested a formal trial, arguing that he had no intent to conceal the property.
The Wonju branch of the Chuncheon District Court, which handled the first trial, stated, "Even considering the justification claimed by the defendant, the method chosen by the defendant does not befit the dignity of a public official, and the justification itself is not based on accurate facts." The court added, "Instead of acknowledging and reflecting on his wrongdoing, the defendant criticized the victim's usual behavior," and imposed a fine.
During the appeal, Mr. A's side again denied the charges, stating, "The black tape was simply used to mark the location so that the laptop could be easily found," and "Since the tape could be easily removed without much effort, this act cannot be considered concealment."
The appellate court re-examined the case. The court found that, regardless of whether the tape could be easily removed, the fact that the drawer was sealed with tape could give the impression to others that the drawer should not be opened without permission.
The court also noted that, given Mr. A had previously filed criminal complaints against other office staff, employees might have been concerned that removing the tape without authorization could lead to legal issues.
The court concluded that Mr. A had no authority whatsoever to conceal the laptop. Even if Mr. B had used city property for personal purposes, Mr. A could have reported the matter to a supervisor or the audit office to initiate a proper investigation. The court determined that Mr. A's act of coming to the office during his leave to hide the laptop was nothing more than "private punishment."
Regarding Mr. A's claim that the penalty was excessive and unfair, the court stated, "Since the original verdict, there have been no new circumstances or changes significant enough to warrant a different sentence," and upheld the original ruling.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
