No violations found at rival hagwon following complaints
Court finds no intent to spread false information
Operator filed complaints over suspected violations, did not publicize them
Acquittal stands after prosecution declines to appeal
A court has acquitted the operator of a Korean-language education center who was charged with obstruction of business after filing 10 similar complaints with administrative authorities against a rival hagwon.
Judge Jeong A-yeong of the Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Division 20 acquitted the hagwon director, identified only as A, on Aug. 13 on charges of obstruction of business.
A, who operated a hagwon in Seoul, was accused of repeatedly filing complaints with administrative authorities against businesses run by B, the director of another Korean-language school, on 10 separate occasions between April 2024 and last August, thereby interfering with B's operations.
According to the facts established by the court, the complaints A filed covered a range of issues.
When B posted on the school's official social media that customers could "enjoy freshly baked bread every morning," A filed a complaint alleging that B's business was "selling bread and other food items at the hagwon." A also cited photos on B's school website to claim that "sprinklers and fire doors cannot be properly identified" and that "illegal construction or renovation is suspected."
No violations were ultimately found at B's businesses. Administrative authorities took only advisory action, noting there was "some room for misunderstanding."
A was investigated on charges of obstruction of business and subsequently indicted, but the court acquitted him.
The court concluded that it was "insufficient to find that A's complaints constituted obstruction of business, or that A had the awareness or intent to report false information."
The court said that "if the mere fact that civil servants were dispatched to the scene to conduct inspections in response to a complaint — causing some disruption to their work — were enough to constitute obstruction of business, there would be a risk of excessively expanding the scope of criminal punishment." It added that "A only filed complaints about matters that raised suspicion and did not disseminate them to the public."
The court further said that "even if the administrative agency dispatched officials to conduct an on-site investigation at B's hagwon, it cannot be concluded that this amounted to obstruction of business rather than a legitimate complaint filed for the public interest, given the content and intent of A's complaints."
The court also noted that "fire safety and the prevention of illegal construction are areas of high public interest." It said A appeared to have "harbored doubts about B's compliance with the law after reviewing B's hagwon website, blog and social media posts, and filed the complaints to prompt an investigation or corrective action."
The court concluded that "even if civil servants were dispatched to the scene and no violations were found as a result, it is difficult to conclude that A had the awareness and intent to obstruct business."
The ruling was finalized as issued. The prosecution did not appeal the first-instance acquittal.
notstrong@heraldcorp.com
