"Misunderstood Instructions"... Passenger Acquitted for Removing Emergency Exit Cover Before Takeoff

Removed Emergency Exit Cover After Repeated Instructions From Crew
Court: "Valid Grounds for Mistaking Instructions as a Directive"

A passenger who mistakenly removed the emergency exit handle cover after misinterpreting a flight attendant's instructions while seated in the emergency exit row on a domestic flight has been acquitted. The court determined that, given the repeated explanations from the attendant on how to open the emergency exit, there was a possibility the passenger misunderstood these instructions as an immediate order to act.

Image to aid understanding of the article. Not directly related to the article. Getty Images Bank

According to Yonhap News Agency on July 20, Judge Kang Mi-hye of the Jeju District Court’s Criminal Division 2 Acquittal Panel found the defendant, a man in his 30s identified as A, not guilty of violating the Aviation Security Act. A had been indicted without detention.

On February 5, last year, at around 8:17 p.m., A was seated in the emergency exit row of a flight preparing to depart from Jeju Airport to Gimpo. During the attendant’s briefing, A removed the emergency exit handle cover and was subsequently brought to trial on related charges.

As a result of this incident, the departure of the flight was delayed by approximately one hour from its original scheduled time.

During the trial, A argued that he had simply misunderstood the flight attendant’s explanation and had not removed the cover intentionally.

Image to aid understanding of the article. Not directly related to the article. Pexels

At the time, the attendant explained to A, “In case of an emergency, if you receive a signal from the crew, check outside the window and then remove the emergency exit cover.” When A looked at the attendant, the same instructions were repeated once more.

A testified that because the attendant repeated the explanation, he mistakenly believed he was being instructed to “try opening the cover right now,” and therefore removed it.

The court found that A had a justifiable reason for misunderstanding the attendant’s instructions.

Judge Kang stated, “If the attendant explained the emergency exit procedure repeatedly, it cannot be ruled out that, from the perspective of an ordinary person, this could be misunderstood as a directive to take immediate action.”

The court also found it difficult to conclude that A had removed the cover out of personal curiosity.

Judge Kang explained the reasons for the acquittal, saying, “If the action had been motivated by personal curiosity, it is unlikely that the conduct would have stopped at removing only the emergency exit cover. The defendant attempted to reattach the cover upon realizing the misunderstanding and cooperated fully with subsequent procedures.”

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