Man who left methanol bottles outside father's door escapes most serious charge on legal technicality

A man who left soju bottles filled with toxic methanol and forged notes with his dead grandmother’s signature outside his father’s door was convicted by the Supreme Court of retaliatory intimidation and stalking, but he escaped the most serious charge against him on a legal technicality over the definition of “carrying” a weapon, according to court records on Monday.

In March 2024, the man left the bottles containing a fatal concentration of methanol — measured at 79.9 percent — and handwritten messages in which he impersonated the victim’s deceased mother at his doorstep in Ulsan on five separate counts, prosecutors said.

The man had been involved in a separate trial for assaulting his father in an incident concerning a settlement.

For the methanol bottles and forged notes, prosecutors charged the defendant with making retaliatory threats, stalking and aggravated intimidation of a blood relative.

Both the first and second courts found him guilty on all charges and sentenced him to 18 months in prison, suspended for three years. The courts found that the man “harbored a grudge and acted with retaliatory intent” after the other trial. The repeated nature of the offense was deemed sufficient to uphold all charges.

The Supreme Court agreed on most counts but ruled that the charge of aggravated intimidation of a lineal ascendant could not stand, sending that part of the case back to the lower court for retrial.

It reasoned that because the defendant had already left the scene by the time his father had discovered the bottles, he could not be considered to have been “carrying” a dangerous object at the time of the incident. “It cannot be said that he had the bottle under his practical control with the intent to use it as a dangerous object, thereby raising the likelihood that the threatened harm would be carried out,” the court explained.

Under Article 284 of the Criminal Act, aggravated intimidation requires that a person threaten another while “carrying a dangerous object.” Supreme Court precedent has consistently interpreted “carrying” to mean having an object in one’s possession or on one’s person. For the charge to apply, the court has held, the defendant must have the object under practical control and be in a position to use it at any time to increase the credibility of the threatened harm.

The ruling follows a similar precedent. A man who had been charged with leaving a knife outside the home of former People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon was previously acquitted on the same aggravated intimidation charge on the same legal reasoning: The Supreme Court found that because he had left a knife and a lighter outside Han’s front door and already exited the building, he could not be said to have been “carrying” the objects and sent that charge back for retrial.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.

BY CHOI SEO-IN. [[email protected]]