Son Who Left Poisoned Bottle at Father's Home Not Guilty of Special Intimidation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has overturned a lower court's ruling, stating that a son cannot be prosecuted for special intimidation after placing a soju bottle filled with methanol outside his father's home. The court sent the case back to the Busan High Court.

The defendant was accused of placing bottles containing lethal doses of methanol at his father's doorstep five times between March 11 and 19, 2024. A note, purportedly from his deceased paternal grandmother, was attached to one bottle, reading, "Son. I want to see you quickly. Mom."

Prosecutors alleged the act was retaliation after the father, with whom the son had a strained relationship and had been living separately since 2015, refused to reconcile. The lower courts had found the son guilty of special intimidation of a parent, retaliatory threats, and violating the Stalking Punishment Act, citing the "very poor nature" of his crimes while already on trial for assaulting his father.

However, the Supreme Court differentiated the special intimidation charge. It reasoned that the defendant left the scene without the victim being aware of the methanol's presence and that the accompanying note indicated no intention for the father to consume the contents. The court emphasized that for special intimidation to apply, the perpetrator must create a situation where the dangerous object can be used at any moment. In this case, the son merely left the bottle and departed. The Supreme Court upheld the guilty verdicts for retaliatory threats and stalking violations.

“

Son. I want to see you quickly. Mom.