🔍 Case Overview

Who

Store owner A, operator of an unmanned ice cream shop in Incheon.

Child B, an elementary school student (8 years old at the time).


What Happened

In 2023, Child B took one ice cream from an unmanned store without paying.

Store owner A reviewed CCTV footage, captured images of the child’s face, and posted them inside the store.

Although the face was partially mosaic-blurred, facial features were still identifiable.

Beneath the photo, A added a message urging “conscience” and suggesting apology over “criminal resolution.”


Subsequent Events

Child B’s mother later visited the store and paid for the ice cream.

Police notified A that:

– Child B was born in 2014.

– At age 8, B was a criminally non-liable minor under Korean law. (Note: Age of criminal responsibility is 14.)


Despite this, A kept the photo posted until September 2023, even after the parents filed a complaint for defamation.


—

⚖️ Charges

– Child abuse under the Child Welfare Act (emotional abuse)

– Defamation


—

🏛️ Trial History

1️⃣ Trial Court (Lower Court)

Found A not guilty on all charges.

Reasoning:

Posting the photo alone did not rise to the level of abuse or harmful conduct affecting the child’s normal development.


—

2️⃣ Appellate Court (Incheon District Court, Criminal Appeals Division 5-3)

Reversed the acquittal

Sentence: Fine of 2 million KRW

Case No.: 2025No2329

Decision Date: January 28, 2026


—

🧠 Why the Appellate Court Found Guilt

The appellate court concluded that A’s actions constituted emotional abuse and defamation, citing:

The posted photos made it possible for unspecified third parties, including acquaintances, to identify the child as a suspected thief.

The child likely experienced shame and psychological distress.

Testimony from the child’s father indicated:

– Severe stress

– Crying during sleep twice a day


The child was later diagnosed with adjustment disorder at a psychiatric clinic.



—

❗ Key Legal Factors Highlighted by the Court

A knew the child’s parents’ contact information and could have requested payment or an apology privately.

Instead, A chose public exposure and implied criminality.

The court found this to be an intentional act of psychological pressure on the child.

The court rejected the argument that the store owner’s interests outweighed the harm suffered by the child.



—

🎯 Key Takeaway

> Even minimal theft by a child does not justify public shaming. Posting identifiable images of a minor, especially after knowing the child is criminally non-liable, can constitute emotional abuse and defamation under Korean law.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=215570