The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of overturning a special intimidation conviction against a man in his 40s who left a knife and flammable materials at the front door of former People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon's home.
According to legal sources on Wednesday, the First Division of the Supreme Court (presiding Justice Shin Sook-hee) on April 16 overturned a lower court ruling that had sentenced Hong on special intimidation charges to one year in prison, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.
Hong was indicted on charges of leaving a torch used to start fires and a bladed weapon at the door of Han's residence in Seoul's Gangnam district in October 2023 before fleeing the scene. The motive was reportedly a delusion that Han, who was serving as justice minister at the time, was conducting surveillance on him.
The court of first instance sentenced Hong to one year in prison, citing the poor nature of the crime as a weapons-related offense targeting a senior public official, and the fact that he had meticulously planned the act by scouting the residence twice beforehand. The appellate court also upheld the original sentence, ruling that the very act of placing dangerous objects in front of the victim's door satisfied the requirements for special intimidation. However, it acquitted him of violating the Stalking Punishment Act, finding it difficult to conclude that he had approached the actual residence in close proximity.
The Supreme Court reached a different conclusion. While acknowledging the facts that Hong had left the weapons behind, the court held that the special intimidation charge could not be legally applied. The ruling reflects a strict interpretation of the "carrying a weapon" requirement for the crime's establishment.
"At the time the victim became aware of the weapon, the defendant had already left the scene, meaning he was neither in possession of nor effectively controlling the knife and lighter," the Supreme Court bench stated. The court further explained the grounds for remanding the case, adding, "It is difficult to conclude that he amplified the likelihood of harm by threatening the other party while effectively controlling the objects with the intent to use them for their original purpose."
