"Is This Really Necessary?" Judge and Lawyer Both Frustrated...Will the 1,050 Won Snack Theft Case Result in Another Fine on Appeal?

Defense Requests Two New Witnesses
Will Additional Testimony Clear the Charges?
Key Issue: Was It Customary to Ask Permission Before Eating?

"A trial over 1,050 won? The world has become too harsh," "Do we really have to go this far over a Choco Pie?"

Many people who have come across this unprecedented trial over a loss of just 1,050 won have expressed their dismay at the harshness of society. While the first trial resulted in a 50,000 won fine, there is speculation that the outcome could change in the appellate court.

At risk of losing his job over 1,050 won worth of snacks eaten during a night shift

Image to aid understanding of the article. Image Today

Previously, an employee (Mr. A, 41) of a logistics company subcontractor in Wanju County, North Jeolla Province, took a 400-won Choco Pie and a 600-won custard from the office refrigerator at 4:06 a.m. on January 18 last year. Mr. A, who was responsible for security work at the site, said he took the snacks because he was hungry while on patrol. At the time, Mr. A did not expect that eating 1,050 won worth of snacks would lead to a criminal trial and put his job at risk.

He argued, "My fellow truck drivers would often say, 'There are snacks in the fridge, feel free to have some.'" However, the first trial court determined that he had the intent to steal and imposed a 50,000 won fine. Since a finalized fine would result in the loss of his job, Mr. A requested a formal trial and is contesting his innocence. The fact that someone’s livelihood is threatened over snacks worth just over 1,000 won has left many people feeling bitter.

"Problem with witness examination in the first trial"...New witnesses adopted in the appeal

According to the legal community on September 22, at the first hearing of Mr. A's theft appeal held on September 18 by the Criminal Division 2 of Jeonju District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Dohyung), the defense attorney requested the adoption of two new witnesses, arguing that "there was a problem with the witness examination in the first trial."

The defense stated, "In this case, it is true that everyone (logistics company employees, security company staff, delivery drivers, etc.) would similarly take snacks," and explained, "However, when the prosecutor asked the security company employee who was a witness in the first trial, 'Did you also eat the snacks?' the witness answered defensively, concerned that he might get himself in trouble."

This witness, who worked at the security company with Mr. A, previously testified, "I have eaten snacks that were visible as soon as I entered the office," but also gave a somewhat ambiguous answer, saying, "I did not know there was a refrigerator in the office, and I never took snacks from there." The first trial court used this testimony as a basis to conclude that Mr. A unusually opened the refrigerator without permission from office staff to steal the Choco Pie and custard.

"Was there implied consent?"...Proof of customary practice could be a key factor

The defense noted, "The two witnesses requested for the appeal are different individuals from those in the first trial," and explained, "Both are people who know the office situation well. I recorded my conversations with them to show that the process of requesting their testimony was not distorted." The defense submitted the transcripts of these conversations to the court. As the prosecutor raised no objections, the court decided to examine both witnesses at the next hearing. During the witness examination scheduled for October 30, questions are expected to focus, as in the first trial, on whether it was customary and permitted to take Choco Pies and custards from the office refrigerator.

In the legal community, a prevailing view is that theft charges cannot be established if the owner (victim) has given consent, and such consent can be implied or presumed as long as it does not violate social norms. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that if a victim living together with the defendant does not stop the defendant from taking 60,000 won in cash from their wallet, it is reasonable to view this as implied consent, and thus theft is not established. Therefore, if testimony emerges that it was customary for both security company staff and delivery drivers, who were subcontractors, to use the main logistics company's office refrigerator, there is analysis that the appellate court's decision could be overturned.

A legal official commented, "Given the high public interest, it is difficult to make legal judgments during the trial. If the defendant was the only subcontractor employee to use the refrigerator, there could be a legal issue, but if not, the charges may not be established. More than anything, I am not sure this is even a matter that should go to trial."