Case Overview

A Korean airline cabin crew member (A) visited a café in Bangkok on May 30, 2023 and consumed a donut and drink containing cannabis.

A later self-reported to the Incheon Airport Police on June 1, stating they only found out afterwards that the products contained cannabis.

A initial urine drug test was negative, but a more detailed analysis later showed:

– THC detected in urine

– No THC detected in hair


Despite this mixed result, prosecutors issued a deferred prosecution (기소유예) for violating the Narcotics Control Act.

A filed a constitutional complaint, arguing:

They did not know “cannabis” meant marijuana.

They had no intent to commit a crime.

Their rights to equality and pursuit of happiness were violated.




—

Constitutional Court’s Key Findings

The Court unanimously cancelled the deferred prosecution decision.

Main reasoning:

Evidence did not prove A knew the food and drinks contained cannabis at the moment of consumption.

Packaging had the word “cannabis” and leaf images, but A consistently stated they didn’t recognize the meaning.

A even posted photos on social media, and only after a colleague commented did they realize it contained cannabis.

A immediately reported themselves to police upon returning to Korea and voluntarily provided urine and hair samples.

Their actions suggested a lack of criminal intent.

No prior drug history or experience with cannabis.

Only 2 months of work experience on Thailand routes.




—

Legal Significance

The ruling emphasizes:

Criminal intent (고의) must be clearly established before imposing sanctions.

Simply consuming a cannabis-containing product abroad is not enough to justify punishment if the person did not know what they were consuming.

Self-reporting and transparency by the accused can weigh significantly in judging intent.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/Case-curation/213962