Shared a 1,500-Won Ice Cream, Charged With 'Special Theft'... Controversy Over Referral of Severely Disabled Individuals

Parents Paid 100,000 Won in Compensation; Store Owner Submitted Letter of Non-Punishment
Prosecution Suspends Indictment... Family Says "We Will File a Complaint Against the Investigators"

Two individuals with severe developmental disabilities shared a 1,500 won ice cream at a convenience store without paying for it and were subsequently referred to the prosecution on charges of aggravated theft, sparking controversy over excessive investigation.

Busanjin Police Station

According to Yonhap News on the 13th, the Busanjin Police Station referred two individuals in their 30s, including a person identified as A, who has severe developmental disabilities, to the prosecution on charges of aggravated theft. They are accused of sharing a 1,500 won ice cream at a convenience store in Busan on June 10 without paying for it.

After learning of the incident belatedly, the parents of the individuals visited the convenience store to apologize and compensated the store with 100,000 won—more than 60 times the price of the ice cream. The store owner reportedly stated that, considering their circumstances, they did not wish to pursue punishment.

However, the police determined that the act of the two individuals jointly taking and eating the ice cream constituted aggravated theft under the Criminal Act, and transferred the case to the prosecution. Article 331 of the Criminal Act stipulates that when two or more people conspire to steal another person's property, it is punishable as aggravated theft.

The prosecution, upon receiving the case, acknowledged the offense but issued a suspension of indictment, taking into account that it was the first offense for both individuals, that they had reached a settlement with the victim, and that the store owner did not wish to press charges. A suspension of indictment is a disposition in which, even if the charges are acknowledged, the accused is not brought to trial in consideration of the circumstances of the crime and the extent of the damage.

The families are protesting, arguing that it was an excessive investigation to apply the charge of aggravated theft—a serious crime—without considering the degree of disability and the scale of the damage. It is reported that the families plan to file a complaint against the investigating officers on charges of abuse of authority.

The police stated that, under the law, it was difficult to close the case on their own. A police official explained, "Since aggravated theft carries only a prison sentence, it does not qualify for review as a minor offense, so the best course was to refer the case to the prosecution for a suspension of indictment. All mitigating factors, such as the suspects' severe disabilities, were fully taken into account when referring the case."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.