"Because It Was a First Offense, Because They Were Remorseful, Because of Poor Health"...Courts Go Easy on Public Threats

[Financial News] Although the offense of public threats, which allows courts to impose up to five years in prison or a fine of up to 20 million won on perpetrators of terror threats and intimidation, was newly established in March last year, related crimes have not declined. Even while finding defendants guilty, courts have mainly imposed fines or suspended prison sentences, which are considered relatively light penalties. Critics argue that, although the statutory provisions have become more sophisticated, the repeated "slap-on-the-wrist" rulings have undermined the law’s effectiveness in preventing crime.
A review by this newspaper on the 14th of written judgments in cases sentenced last year for the offense of public threats found that, among five defendants, four received suspended prison sentences and one was fined. The courts cited factors such as the defendants’ remorse, lack of prior convictions for similar offenses, and poor health as mitigating circumstances in sentencing.
One reason cited for the continued stream of terror warnings and threats, despite the government’s introduction of the public threat offense to toughen punishment, is the leniency of actual sentences. The offense was created to punish threats directed at an unspecified number of people, but observers say it has had limited practical effect. Before the introduction of the public threat offense, there was a widely shared view that there were significant limitations in punishing threat crimes targeting the general public. Prosecutors typically applied charges such as intimidation, preparation or conspiracy to commit murder, violations of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization, or violations of the Minor Offenses Act. However, when victims were not specifically identified or the statutory penalties were low, it was difficult to impose meaningful punishment. Depending on who was deemed the victim and at what point the crime was considered complete, the charges applied and final rulings varied even in similar cases. There were cases where threats clearly aimed at the general public went unpunished.
Some, however, say that the judiciary does recognize the need for stern punishment. In October last year, the Suwon District Court sentenced a defendant, identified as A, who had been indicted on charges of public threats, to four months in prison with two years of probation, while noting that "there is a high likelihood that third parties who read the threatening post would have perceived that the defendant had both the intent and the ability to inflict harm on an unspecified number of people" and that "it is appropriate to impose a prison sentence commensurate with the defendant’s culpability." A had been brought to trial on allegations of posting online that he would use knives and other dangerous weapons to harm the lives and bodies of people with different political beliefs during the impeachment turmoil surrounding former President Yoon Suk Yeol.
Overseas, there is a growing trend toward harsh punishment for false terror threats and intimidation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States can have even teenagers sentenced to prison if they post threatening messages targeting an unspecified number of people via social media, text messages, or email. A key feature is that punishment is imposed regardless of whether the recipient actually felt threatened. In Michigan, those who issue terror threats or make false reports can face up to 20 years in prison or a fine of up to 20,000 dollars. Courts may impose both imprisonment and a fine, and offenders are subject to punishment even if they lacked the intent or ability to carry out the crime.
Experts advise that sentencing levels must be raised to instill a stronger sense of caution. Yeom Gun-woong, a professor in the Department of Police and Fire Administration at U1 University, said, "The judiciary must impose strong penalties so that people recognize that committing public threat offenses will inevitably lead to punishment and serious disadvantages," adding, "It is also necessary to rigorously pursue civil liability, such as by filing claims for damages."
jyseo@fnnews.com Seo Ji-yoon Reporter