A South Korean student who allegedly took a KRW 1,500 snack from an unmanned store without paying was given a prosecutor’s “suspension of indictment” (기소유예), but the Constitutional Court (헌법재판소) later canceled that disposition, finding it violated the student’s constitutional rights.


—

What the case was about

The student (a “repeat test-taker,” i.e., re-taking the college entrance exam) visited an unmanned ice cream shop late at night.

He selected 4 ice creams + a snack but only paid for the ice creams and bag fee (KRW 3,050).

He also reportedly left an 800-won ice cream on top of a freezer instead of putting it back.

The store owner reported him to police, claiming losses.


Settlement

The student paid the owner KRW 100,000 as part of a settlement.

The owner submitted a written request for leniency.


Student’s position

He said he was wearing earphones and simply forgot to scan the snack (i.e., lack of intent to steal).

He had no prior criminal record.



—

What prosecutors did

Prosecutors issued a 기소유예 (suspension of indictment): they did not indict him, but treated the act as meeting the elements of theft.

Their gist: because he didn’t pay for items totaling about KRW 2,300, a crime existed, justifying the disposition.



—

What the Constitutional Court decided

The Constitutional Court unanimously (9–0) canceled the prosecutor’s 기소유예.

Core reasoning (plain English)

The Court said it is hard to conclude the student had intent to steal, yet the prosecutor assumed theft intent and issued a disposition anyway.

That involved serious investigative insufficiency or a major error in evaluating evidence significant enough to affect the decision.

After reviewing CCTV, the Court pointed to facts inconsistent with a “deliberate theft” story:

He wore earphones openly, did not conceal his face, and used his own check card to pay for other items.

There was no clear sign he was separating out the snack on purpose to steal it.



Rejection of the prosecutor’s argument

Prosecutors argued: he repeatedly checked his phone and could have seen payment text alerts, so intent existed.

The Court responded: he could have been checking his phone for other reasons (e.g., changing music), so phone-checking alone can’t prove intent.



—

Why people are calling it a “second Choco Pie case”

The article compares this to a past controversy where prosecutors charged a worker over eating a low-value snack (a “Choco Pie”-type item), sparking backlash about over-criminalization of trivial losses and prosecutorial discretion.


—

The practical takeaway 🍪⚖️

Even for small amounts, theft requires intent.

When the evidence is compatible with an honest mistake (especially in unmanned/self-checkout settings), authorities need careful proof before treating it as a criminal theft case.

The Constitutional Court’s cancellation signals: a “non-indictment disposition” can still be unconstitutional if based on shaky assumptions of guilt.

Article: https://www.fnnews.com/news/202601051608325998